"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 5:20 pm, "Dave" wrote:

If you have an optimizer program I will identify it for you.
i have YO and AO but have played with EZNEC and some others... pick your
program and tell me where to put in the weak force term.

Where do I pick up the money:
the emmy's don't have money, just funny statues or some such junk... you
aren't worth the cash, just a good laugh.

On Sep 12, 7:04*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 5:20 pm, "Dave" wrote:

If you have an optimizer program I will identify it for you.

i have YO and AO but have played with EZNEC and some others... pick your
program and tell me where to put in the weak force term.

Where do I pick up the money:

the emmy's don't have money, just funny statues or some such junk... you
aren't worth the cash, just a good laugh.

Excellent
pull up AO optimiser
Above ground
800 Mhz;inches

Put in xyz for centerfed wasvelength for 800 Mhz
Put in different numbers for xyz for one wire
Source is at the centre

a=1
aa=any number say 8
b =2
bb=any number say 10
c=3
cc=any number say 12
dia = 0.1 inches

vary aa bb and cc only this gives the program free reign to produce a
vertical or a tipped antenna without being
guided one way or the other.ie all numbers are different change entry
numbers if you like as long as there are no repeats
and let the optimizer run where it wants to for resistive impedance ,
max gain or both.
a,b,c are low numbers so the radiator does not drift in terms of
height

20 segments per half wave length should be enough. Impedance will come
out close to 200 ohms as a guess
AND MAXIMUM GAIN OR JUST GAIN OR JUST RESISTIVE IMPEDANCE....YOUR
CHOICE.
LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT YOU GET
Now you are on the hot plate at last.
Put up or shut up

Regards
Art KB9MZ......xg

On Sep 12, 7:05*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:20*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...Becaus ethey are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.

you think the 'weak' force is in maxwell's equations? *please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force. *do that and i will
personally nominate you for an emmy award.... i would say a nobel prize, but
i really expect to see more handwaving and backpedeling that is more suited
to a bad actor than a physicist.

Oh my! It is in Maxwells laws, without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium.
You are getting a bit silly now. There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
*account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

You would make a good politician: When you don't know the answer,
change the question.

He challenged you as follows: "please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force."

You answered: " without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium."

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

..... There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

In fact no one has said that the "Weak force" is fictitious. The comment
was in relation to the usage of the term "Electro-weak force".

Frank

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Dave" wrote:
Now you are on the hot plate at last.
Put up or shut up

not even worth opening the program. for I know that any time you let the
optimizer run without realistic bounds and go for maximum gain you are going
to get either and unrealizable design or something that no one would want to
use anyway. that is what has been fooling you all along, you don't know the
limitations of the programs you are using and taking their results as
gospel.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 7:05 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

you'll never get the answer. his only response last night was for me to try
to duplicate one of his rediculous optimizations to get a tilted dipole. he
doesn't know even the most basic math behind the equations, he has latched
onto the gauss equation drawing (not the equation, just the drawing mind
you) that shows the surface integration around a charged object and is doing
everythign from that... the rest of it is made up from misreading, or just
plain not understanding, other news articles that have some kind of
percieved relation to em fields... for instance his latest fasination with
the weak force is from the use of the term 'electro-weak' force, while this
is well known to be confined to the nucleons in an atom he has extended it
to his fantasy world to explain the tipping of dipoles over ground to get
gain... my recommendation is to keep prodding him for fun, but ignore
anything he says.

On Sep 13, 6:04*am, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 7:05 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

you'll never get the answer. *his only response last night was for me to try
to duplicate one of his rediculous optimizations to get a tilted dipole. *he
doesn't know even the most basic math behind the equations, he has latched
onto the gauss equation drawing (not the equation, just the drawing mind
you) that shows the surface integration around a charged object and is doing
everythign from that... the rest of it is made up from misreading, or just
plain not understanding, other news articles that have some kind of
percieved relation to em fields... for instance his latest fasination with
the weak force is from the use of the term 'electro-weak' force, while this
is well known to be confined to the nucleons in an atom he has extended it
to his fantasy world to explain the tipping of dipoles over ground to get
gain... my recommendation is to keep prodding him for fun, but ignore
anything he says.

Tell them what AO showed you

On Sep 12, 11:51*pm, "Frank" wrote:
..... There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

In fact no one has said that the "Weak force" is fictitious. *The comment
was in relation to the usage of the term "Electro-weak force".

Frank

Frank
Electro weak is what some continue to say for the weak force.
Assumption being that it is electrical nature and part and parcel of
another force.
When David does his thing with AO for himself he will inform you of
the angle of the weak force
and may even provide its magnitude. His series of questions and
statements stop here.
If I supply answers and he rejects implementation then we cannot move
on.
He is just baiting or he wwould tell you what AO provided. All have a
chane to resolve the question for themselves
thus relieving me of challenges as to my integrity. I cannot satisfy
anybody and they cannot satisfy themselves
We now enter the stone throwing stage and the thread comes to an end
Have a good day
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 11:51 pm, "Frank" wrote:

He is just baiting or he wwould tell you what AO provided. All have a
chane to resolve the question for themselves

of course i'm just baiting the troll... you have said nothing that makes
enough sense to even bother trying to verify it. i know that if i run the
optimizer long enough it will even give gain out of your shoebox full of
wire... that is just the way it works... and AO was really bad for that if
you didn't watch it and constrain it to realizable antennas.

thus relieving me of challenges as to my integrity. I cannot satisfy
anybody and they cannot satisfy themselves
We now enter the stone throwing stage and the thread comes to an end

that started long ago.

Have a good day

maybe i will, the sun is trying to come out so maybe i don't need to bait
you into any more lunacy for our entertainment on here.

On Sep 13, 7:04*am, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 7:05 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

you'll never get the answer. *his only response last night was for me to try
to duplicate one of his rediculous optimizations to get a tilted dipole. *he
doesn't know even the most basic math behind the equations, he has latched
onto the gauss equation drawing (not the equation, just the drawing mind
you) that shows the surface integration around a charged object and is doing
everythign from that... the rest of it is made up from misreading, or just
plain not understanding, other news articles that have some kind of
percieved relation to em fields... for instance his latest fasination with
the weak force is from the use of the term 'electro-weak' force, while this
is well known to be confined to the nucleons in an atom he has extended it
to his fantasy world to explain the tipping of dipoles over ground to get
gain... my recommendation is to keep prodding him for fun, but ignore
anything he says.

In the past his "big discovery" was that, if you put the static charge
in motion, then at any instant in time the Guassian STATIC law still
applies. Then to make things worse, some scientist at MIT posted here
and agreed with that and that he took that as validation for his
entire theory. After he saw where the thread was going, the MIT guy
quickly departed the discussion and left the rest of us here to deal
with the Frankenstein he created. I think it was a type of academic
hazing of the group. From that came the pronoucement, validated by
MIT, that he was able to validate that the 'Maxwell's static equation
(the surface integral) also held true under dynamic conditions'! The
gravitational analog would be something like saying a ball maintains
the same mass at the top of the hill, as it does while rolling, as it
does at the bottom of the hill. Watch out that he doesn't counter with
relativistic velocities; the motion of charge on the antenna is
actually quite slow and in no way relativistic. Of course it is true
that the Maxwell static law would hold true for a moving charged
particle at any instant frozen in time and of course the MIT scientist
would agree with that (the MIT guy even said he had a computer
printout that simulated a moving charge and, arithmetically the
surface integral charge measured at an instant of time was equal to
the charge of the electron...that made me suspicious of his sense of
humor), but so what? We already know that motion does not deplete the
charge on the particle. The charge on the particle is conserved.
Static charge is not the source of the energy that is used (depleted)
to keep the particle in motion. Maxwell already showed that in the
rest of his equations. The fact that an electron maintains the same
charge regardless of its state of motion and therefore does nothing to
change the state of charge equilibrium has nothing to do with how an
antenna works other than the antenna simply obeys Maxwells laws like
everything else.