Art Unwin wrote:

...
I don't see how that could happen except when a charge is released it
produces a
lesser resistance route by ironizing of the medium travelled either in
the initial case
or of a resultant discharge travelling thu ozone.

Regards,
JS
Interesting
Regards
Art


Well, I AM one which can picture, theoretically, the antenna as a
"transformer"; and, the antenna taking the signal from the feedline and
"properly interfacing"/matching/transforming-its'-characteristics to the
ether (actually, the ether looks like a "spherical turn" of
superconductor which envelopes the antenna, as someone, either
intentionally or unintentionally, mentioned in an earlier post in
another thread ...)

But, as some gurus have pointed out, REAL PROOF for this is lacking ...

However, very ancient material incorporated the ether into theories of
those times. Then, Einstein, in error, dismissed the ether
totally--then he reneged and changed "luminous ether" to "gravitational
ether." It would seem the "luminous ether" would be fine, if you only
dealt with photons and/or "waves of photons." "Gravitational ether"
would allow for much, much more ... in that one point is a LOT to
contemplate ...

It seems to me, that most, past, authors/experimenters/scholars having
been "fooled once" and changing from the ethers existence to its'
non-existence, would NOT take a chance on being "fooled again"--they
began to "ignore" the ether ...

End-point being, there are loads of equations and formulas laying about
which craftily ignore the ether ... indeed, in my younger years it was
not uncommon to find physicists totally ignorant of Einsteins acceptance
of the gravitational ether (indeed, my own education was along these
lines, only later readings on Einstein brought forth this error.)
"They" would state that Einstein denied the ether, and one would have to
go to great lengths to convince them different, if at all! ... go figure.

It is still quite common to find hams will have "NO ETHER!"

And, the point of all that? We shall, often, need to agree to disagree ...

Regards,
JS

On Nov 2, 3:09*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
...
I don't see how that could happen except when a charge is released it
produces a
lesser resistance route by ironizing of the medium travelled either in
the initial case
or of a resultant discharge travelling thu ozone.

Regards,
JS
Interesting
Regards
Art

Well, I AM one which can picture, theoretically, the antenna as a
"transformer"; *and, the antenna taking the signal from the feedline and
"properly interfacing"/matching/transforming-its'-characteristics to the
ether (actually, the ether looks like a "spherical turn" of
superconductor which envelopes the antenna, as someone, either
intentionally or unintentionally, mentioned in an earlier post in
another thread ...)

But, as some gurus have pointed out, REAL PROOF for this is lacking ...

However, very ancient material incorporated the ether into theories of
those times. *Then, Einstein, in error, dismissed the ether
totally--then he reneged and changed "luminous ether" to "gravitational
ether." *It would seem the "luminous ether" would be fine, if you only
dealt with photons and/or "waves of photons." *"Gravitational ether"
would allow for much, much more ... in that one point is a LOT to
contemplate ...

It seems to me, that most, past, authors/experimenters/scholars having
been "fooled once" and changing from the ethers existence to its'
non-existence, would NOT take a chance on being "fooled again"--they
began to "ignore" the ether ...

End-point being, there are loads of equations and formulas laying about
which craftily ignore the ether ... indeed, in my younger years it was
not uncommon to find physicists totally ignorant of Einsteins acceptance
of the gravitational ether (indeed, my own education was along these
lines, only later readings on Einstein brought forth this error.)
"They" would state that Einstein denied the ether, and one would have to
go to great lengths to convince them different, if at all! ... go figure.

It is still quite common to find hams will have "NO ETHER!"

And, the point of all that? *We shall, often, need to agree to disagree ...

Regards,
JS

What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS
It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies
the mathematical proof and the math is denied
by the guru's on this newsgroup.
It blows my mind when hams state a conductor must be straight when
they use helicals in so many places yet despite the denials
they will not do the math for themselves but continue to ask me
endless questions so they can continue arguements.
Then they deny I have such an antenna and an Aussie who obviously
likes to bet offered a wager of what was it $1000 US ?
and nobody took him up on the wager. Then there are computor programs
that push aside Yagi antennas in favor of those
in equilibrium which support what I have found and these programs are
designed around Maxwell who is now arpparently losing favor with hams
tho professionals cling to it dearly. I have no problem with Guru's
disagreeing with me but I did expect a morsel or a small challenge
in at least one area other than look up the dictionary for them to get
the definition of equilibrium. And now we have a man who has written a
book
and preferes to tout this piece of trash rather than do the math with
respect to the radiation all on the basis that what he believes is in
a book that he wrote so it must be authentic. David take note when
your book comes out it may spawn a new science to rival classical
physics. It blows my mind that we have threads that break the thousand
mark on reflections or swr and then get repeated again and again
because of disagreements on the substance Now he is toting a later
edition hoping to collect some money from hams. Give me a break since
he will not do the math that I speak of probably because he can't
handle the difference in units between Gauss and Maxwell. You know
when OBAMA
wins the election on Tuesday hams will unite and declare McCAIN the
winner
John have a great evening
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Art wrote:
"----and these programs are designed around Maxwell who is now
apparently losing favor with hams----"

Baloney! My 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book was copyrighted in
2005. On page 3-24 it says:
"By the late 1800s, the work of Lorf Raleigh, Sommerfeld, Fresnell,
Maxwell and many others led to the full mathematic characterization of
all electromagnetic phenomena, light included."

J.C. Maxwell had not nearly lost favor by 2005 among the editors of "The
ARRL Antenna Book", and had he recently been discredited most of us
would have heard of it.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS

ok, give us your equations. what EXACTLY have you done to Gauss? NO HAND
WAVING, write the equations!

It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies
the mathematical proof and the math is denied

if i remember right, he added (t) in a place where it wasn't necessary.
then dissappeared. maybe he decided it was better to not be associated with
your theory? or is he off writing it up for a Nobel prize for himself???

David take note when your book comes out it may spawn a new science to
rival classical
physics.

not my book, nothing theoretical in it, just practical proven stuff.

On Nov 3, 5:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS

ok, give us your equations. *what EXACTLY have you done to Gauss? *NO HAND
WAVING, write the equations!
No David there is no point going down that path again. Me giving you
an equation
would only add more problems. You surely must be aware of an
arbritary border
format where the contents are in equilibrium, why not play with the
Gaussian law of statics
and learn how such a field becomes handy. Then you change it to a
dynamic field with the addition
of radiators while maintaining equilibrium and then subject everything
to a time varying field.
When you do this for your self it becomes more meaningfull to the user
but you have a real problem that you have to sort out
before you play with any of the electrical laws. You have to review
history to convince yourself that all the masters involved in physics
made the proviso that equilibrium MUST exist for the laws to be valid.
They made this proviso based on the reasoning that our Universe is in
a state of equilibrium and later that every action has an equal and
opposite reaction (Newton) If you do not agree with these principles
then the use of a arbitrary border for a mathematical solution is not
valid.
As far as Dr Davis of MIT who is working for the space agency, he did
everything that was required of him and then left. Several times he
came back to help out members of the group with respect to the
mathematics but it was plain that the group did not welcome his
presence. The private e mail I received from him gave me a lot of
confidence in my findings. What I find exciting is that galactic
particles are finding their way from the Sun to Earth which gives
mechanical content to the subject of radiation as opposed to the
prevailing theory of waves. To me this is more far reaching than just
radiation as it also gives other cycles to these same particles with
an affinity to water and other diamagnetic substances which gives it a
firm connection to storms and tornadoes as well as rotating sea areas
along with tides, all of which involved the four forces of the
Universe which Einstein correctly fore saw radiation as the key for
forward movement in understanding of Classical Physics. I consider
myself very fortunate when going back to the Gaussian fields and
applying a broader mathematic front to his work which he may have well
did for himself if he stayed in the field. Doing this provided so many
clues with respect to radiation and how it is produced which produced
connections to other known phenomina which was well known but now how
a dotted line connection to other things that are well established
such that more extensive research was not required which can be very
difficult to those not involved in the academic field;. For me the
jigsaw is now completed and as history shows change takes a long while
to be accepted certainly by those in academia
but for me it doesn't matter as I feel very smug and fortunate with my
findings which contempt by others cannot eradicate.
Enuff said
Best regards
Art unwin KB9MZ..........XG





It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies
the mathematical proof and the math is denied

if i remember right, he added (t) in a place where it wasn't necessary.
then dissappeared. *maybe he decided it was better to not be associated with
your theory? *or is he off writing it up for a Nobel prize for himself???

David take note when your book comes out it may spawn a new science to
rival classical
physics.

not my book, nothing theoretical in it, just practical proven stuff.

On Nov 2, 5:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS

Time is up. I'm back from the dirt pile. Let the games continue.
What blows my mind is why a certain whiny Englishman who
moved to the land of Obama, refuses to do his own homework to
show the world.
Why would I want to do work on your dinky dummy load on a stick?
Why would I even *need* to do your work? After all, all is known
regarding antennas according to you. So you should already know
all the details of this mathematical endeavor, and should be prepared
to release them to the unwashed stinky masses.

It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies
the mathematical proof and the math is denied
by the guru's on this newsgroup.

Why do you keep lying about the doktor. We all know he didn't provide
any math. If your advanced age has made this hard for you to recall,
I can provide the links to the original thread, which I have already
done
before. Maybe even two or three times. :/

It blows my mind when hams state a conductor must be straight when
they use helicals in so many places yet despite the denials
they will not do the math for themselves but continue to ask me
endless questions so they can continue arguements.

What math might I need to answer whatever question you might
have about coils? You already know everything about antennas,
so why bug us about it?

Then they deny I have such an antenna and an Aussie who obviously
likes to bet offered a wager of what was it $1000 US ?
and nobody took him up on the wager.

I have no idea what you are blabbering about. I know you supposedly
sent one of your designs to another ham on this group for a test
run. We have never heard a single peep as to the results of this
test drive. What say, Mr. Stinky?

Then there are computor programs
that push aside Yagi antennas in favor of those
*in equilibrium which support what I have found and these programs are
designed around Maxwell who is now arpparently losing favor with hams
tho professionals cling to it dearly.

Must be a strong program to be able to push around yagi antennas.
Well, I suppose if the yagi was built for 1.2 ghz, it would be
fairly
easy to push aside. But I suspect it would strain mightily to
push around a HF tri-bander..

I have no problem with Guru's
disagreeing with me but I did expect a morsel or a small challenge
in at least one area other than look up the dictionary for them to get
the definition of equilibrium.

I *know* how the rest of the world describes equilibrium. What
I want to know is how *you* apply this term to antenna theory.
Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to
provide this simple answer.
All you want to do is whine, ****, and moan about the sorry
state of the antenna world as you know it.

And now we have a man who has written a
book
and preferes to tout this piece of trash rather than do the math with
respect to the radiation all on the basis that what he believes is in
a book that he wrote so it must be authentic.

What are you whining about now? I know nothing of your man, and
his book. I've been busy playing in the dirt. I guess I missed the
memo...

David take note when
your book comes out it may spawn a new science to rival classical
physics.

I wouldn't be holding your breath.

It blows my mind that we have threads that break the thousand
mark on reflections or swr and then get repeated again and again
because of disagreements on the substance

Your mind is going to explode if you keep this up. !!!BOOM!!!
Blood and brain matter flying all about.. Another one bites the
dust..

*Now he is toting a later
edition hoping to collect some money from hams.

Money is good. And I can do the math when it comes to $$$.



Give me a break since
he will not do the math that I speak of probably because he can't
handle the difference in units between Gauss and Maxwell.

When are *you* going to do the math?

You know
when OBAMA
wins the election on Tuesday hams will unite and declare McCAIN the
winner

I hope so. Obama sucks so hard, he's likely to implode before he gets
in office. Of course, you'll probably vote for the sorry socialist sum-
bitch,
if you haven't already..
I bet he won't do the math for you either. Sure, he'll tell you
whatever
you want to hear at the moment, but at the end of the day, all you
will have is a dummy load on stick legs. Maybe we should have your
antenna do some squats. :/

Mark Keith wrote:
"Why would I even "need" to do your work?"

Good question.

Art`s full wavelength of wire is rolled up so its individual elements
aren`t strung up to fully reinforce each other`s fields. Resistance loss
of the elements adds even when rolled up.

Art wrote:
"What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS."

Who needs it?

Terman`s 1955 opus says on page 864:
"Radio waves represent electrical energy that has escaped into free
space: they are described in detail in Sec. 1-1. Radio waves are
produced to some extent whenever a wire in open space carries a
high-frequency current. The laws governing such radiation are obtained
by using Maxwell`s equations to express the fields associated with the
wi when this is done there is found to be a component, termed the
radiated field, having a strength that varies inversely with distance."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Nov 4, 9:48*am, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Mark Keith wrote:

"Why would I even "need" to do your work?"

Good question.

Art`s full wavelength of wire is rolled up so its individual elements
aren`t strung up to fully reinforce each other`s fields. Resistance loss
of the elements adds even when rolled up.

Art wrote:

"What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS."

Who needs it?

Terman`s 1955 opus says on page 864:
"Radio waves represent electrical energy that has escaped into free
space: they are described in detail in Sec. 1-1. Radio waves are
produced to some extent whenever a wire in open space carries a
high-frequency current. The laws governing such radiation are obtained
by using Maxwell`s equations to express the fields associated with the
wi when this is done there is found to be a component, termed the
radiated field, having a strength that varies inversely with distance."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI *

Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a
wave is made clear.
Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the
atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles
unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the
atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity
flight.
Until. a good definition of a wave comes along and how such is
constituted;
As far as doing all the work for me the work has all been done and
each assertion is backed up by existing modern practices such that no
more proof is required. If people want to ignore science let them
believe that the World is flat but I can't expect the like of Mark to
follow such a trail as he readily admits
to not completing high school or for that matter people who consider
that all education has been completed and thus all is known,.
Fortunately many hams are continueing to experiment in search of the
holy grail where others wish to continue as just talking heads.
Termnans definition quoted above is not definitive with respect to
radiation in any way and it is well recognised that radiation is not
known in all its aspects.
What is known is that there are four fources involved all of which are
accounted for in Maxwell's mathematics but not fully explained in a
scientific account
and that includes the so called definition that Terman put forward in
the absense of fuul knoweledge of radiation.
Regards
Art

On Nov 4, 10:51*am, Art Unwin wrote:


Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a
wave is made clear.
Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the
atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles
unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the
atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity
flight.

I hope it is a good flight. Of course, with the recent economic
downturn, I imagine in-flight meals are out.
I heard they now offer a cup of water and a fig neutrino.







As far as doing all the work for me the work has all been done and
each assertion is backed up by existing modern practices such that no
more proof is required.

Well, then WTF are you doing here whining about it?
Art, you are just plain full of crap. If the work had been done,
you would be offering it as evidence.
But all you do is hand wave various levels of bafflegab.

If people want to ignore science let them
believe that the World is flat but I can't expect the like of Mark to
follow such a trail as he readily admits
to not completing high school or for that matter people who consider
that all education has been completed and thus all is known,.

Well, it's obvious that your education has led you astray.
You can't spell worth a crap, your ideas about science
border on lunacy. And to top it off, you probably voted for
Obama.
And you want to whine about my level of education?
I'm sure this is news to you, but they don't offer antenna
theory in high school. So it wouldn't make a rats ass
if I finished high school or not. I would still have to study
antenna theory either at a later school, or on my own.
I choose to do such study on my own time.

My home schooling appears to be superior to your
version, being I spell slightly better than you do, and
when I talk about antenna theory, people don't constantly
jump down my back telling me I'm insane.
I'm not even corrected very often, and I'm sure they would
if I was off in outer space as far as theory or even
details of whatever antenna talk I enter into.
A fairly nit picky bunch you have around here.
They don't suffer fools very well.

On the other hand, you can't make one post without
causing extreme controversy.
Your idea of science is to conjure up various degrees
of bafflegab, and then blame everyone else for not doing
your "work" when the controversy starts up.

Fortunately many hams are continueing to experiment in search of the
holy grail where others wish to continue as just talking heads.

What is a holy grail antenna? I know what a talking head is.
I see them on the tube every day.
On the other hand, all I see you do is talk out your ass.
A talking ass. Kind of reminds me of Mr. Ed, with a
twist.

Termnans definition quoted above is not definitive with respect to
radiation in any way and it is well recognised that radiation is not
known in all its aspects.

Oh, and you are the one to set us all straight I presume...
Chortle...

What is known is that there are four fources involved all of which are
accounted for in Maxwell's mathematics but not fully explained in a
scientific account
and that includes the so called definition that Terman put forward in
the absense of fuul knoweledge of radiation.

Art, I've got news for you. Terman probably forgot more about
radiation than you know in totality. I think Richards book was
printed in about 1955, and it's still fairly relevant.
You on the other hand... :/

Regards
Art

Regards, the ignorant dumbass.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

A fractional wavelength antenna is NOT in a state of equi;ibrium
( balanced forces if you prefer)
where a full wave radiator IS in a state of equilibrium

Neither of those antennas (and no antennas) are in a state of
equilibrium.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC