On Apr 11, 2:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, "Dave" wrote:

Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.

unfortunately this media restricts us to words, but any phd worth his salt
could reconstruct the equation in symbols from my description. *does: *"del
dot E = rho" *make it any clearer? *if not, look up page 33 of the 2nd
edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics. *and then compare that with
the statement of maxwell's equations on page 2.

David look up Newtons laws and make note of the mathematics that
dictate the presence of a displacement current is used to impact with
mass at the speed of light.
Find out why Maxwell was impelled to insert it into his formue when he
could not identify or verify the legitimacy of such an insertion. He
was a mathematicion who followed the laws of mathematic which also
follows the laws of Newton.
To check his formula legitimacy he had to place his formula to one
side of the equal sign and prove that the equation equated to zero
( from the universal understanding of
cosmos equilibrium) He found that his formula did not equal zero ! So
what could he do for it to make it zero as required? He decided to
cancel out what metrics that he could and then added the extra
required metrics that would cancel out the remaining metrics. Yup the
final equation equaled zero where his insertion predicted the presence
of the weak force acting on a mass or particle.
It was years before Foucault identified what Maxwell had added and
Einstein never identified the weak force metrics that Maxwell placed
right in front of him.
Now we have antenna computer programs that are based on Maxwells laws
that include displacement current where they are programmed to change
what has been inserted to conform with Maxwells laws(optimisation
programs) and not the pre conceived planar design.
And guess what? They do reject pre conceived ideas such as the Yagi
and other planar designs that depend solely of intermagnetic coupling
and place designs that
are in agreement with Maxwell's laws which include the presence of
particlesfor maximum efficiency of radiation.
Now since the laws of Maxwell drops firmly on the side of particles
instead of waves the amateur fraternity feel compelled to discredit
computer programs such that there position is maintained and change is
not required.
And the World continues to waddle in the garbage by ignoring the
accompanying smell. My oh my.
Qudoes to this newsgroup for leading the charge against change
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)

On Apr 11, 11:57*am, Art Unwin wrote:

But all we have at hand are people that are old and unskilled in the
arts.

Hummmm.... :/ 2009-1934= old fart... Chortle..

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
....

You have never debated !

That is for the hooded monks who utter prayers as they beat religion
into those who are not converted.

You could have debated the good Dr from MIT
with respect to mathematics but you chose to insult.He with a
doctorate being denigrated by an english major!

You make him sound like a milk-sop whimpering in the street. (For all
your breast-beating tears for his plight, can't you at least remember
his name?) According to you, your leviathan of intellect whose shadow
you stand in has been trounced by a swish who studied English! I like
how you mince through your charges of brutality to then daintily wedge
the gay-baiting into your invective:
I am sure you learned a lot dressed in those log
legged mesh pants as
you prance around the stage. I thought you were proud of what you are.
You really have an over-active imagination that keeps returning to
these curious fantasies. You spend more effort pruning these little
bouquets than actually staying on topic. What you choose to focus on
is entirely up to you. Let's see how you handle:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
Can you respond to the technical content of its conflict with your
next statement:
wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

I don't mind if you abandon your own claims to their poverty, no one
else will hug these destitute urchins either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 11:57 am, Art Unwin wrote:

But all we have at hand are people that are old and unskilled in the
arts.
Hummmm.... :/ 2009-1934= old fart... Chortle..

and self-confessed unskilled.

*** Exordium ***
My dear Artifice, knowing your attachment to the practices of time out
of mind as indulged by the hooded monks whipping religion into their
young charges; I took a special effort to prepare you a debate with it
demarked by the classic degrees that you will note in *** stars ***

*** accumulatio ***
I have no experience with dishes
This is our first clue which you then elaborate with:
Rutherford of the UK ( Manchester)showed that particles could
piece a foil of gold
Your dish is of inferior craftmanship in that it is certainly not
gold:
The reflector is made from 1/2" mesh steel with an aluminum foil liner

*** Narratio ***
One would note that there is a world of antennas made with neither
gold, nor aluminum (isn't it aluminium?) foil, but thinner metal foil
on mylar or plastic. They work fine and do not suffer failure such as
yours. It would seem they are Rutherford partical resistant and do
not conform to your theory of a weekend farce. This is no surprise as
Margaret Rutherford was an English actress who played in the
flamboyant Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest." Your
work, as disappointing as it is does qualify as being earnest.

*** Divisio ***
However, one must observe the cautionary tale that inhabits that more
important (than your) work of Wilde's:

Jack - My dear Algy, you talk exactly as if you were a dentist.
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression.

One could insert "antenna designer" for "dentist" to the same effect.
As for your fond attachment to Margaret Rutherford, let us take a leaf
from the script where she appears in full character of Miss prism:

Lady Bracknell - Is this Miss prism a female of repellent aspect,
remotely connected with education? It contained the manuscript of
a three-volume novel of more than usually revolting
sentimentality.

Miss prism - [grows pale and quails. She looks anxiously round as if
desirous to escape.]

*** Confirmatio ***
Let's see, Oscar Wilde wrote this at the end of the 19th century,
where much of your reading has been stalled in arrested development.
There is a reference to large written works (three volumes). The
implication being offered is such rambling work can be easily summed
up as the usually revolting sentimentality. And it is all brought
together in the character played by Margaret Rutherford. It shouldn't
take a leap of intelligence to note her character name of prism, and
the work done with prisms by Newton.

*** Peroratio ***
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Lady Bracknell - This noise is extremely unpleasant.
It sounds as if he was having an argument.
I dislike arguments of any kind.
They are always vulgar, and often convincing.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Apr 12, 3:09*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
*** Exordium ***
My dear Artifice, knowing your attachment to the practices of time out
of mind as indulged by the hooded monks whipping religion into their
young charges; I took a special effort to prepare you a debate with it
demarked by the classic degrees that you will note in *** stars ***

*** accumulatio ***I have no experience with dishes

This is our first clue which you then elaborate with:Rutherford of the UK ( Manchester)showed that particles could
piece a foil of gold

Your dish is of inferior craftmanship in that it is certainly not
gold:

The reflector is made from 1/2" mesh steel with an aluminum foil liner

*** Narratio ***
One would note that there is a world of antennas made with neither
gold, nor aluminum (isn't it aluminium?) foil, but thinner metal foil
on mylar or plastic. *They work fine and do not suffer failure such as
yours. *It would seem they are Rutherford partical resistant and do
not conform to your theory of a weekend farce. *This is no surprise as
Margaret Rutherford was an English actress who played in the
flamboyant Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest." *Your
work, as disappointing as it is does qualify as being earnest.

*** Divisio ***
However, one must observe the cautionary tale that inhabits that more
important (than your) work of Wilde's:

Jack - My dear Algy, you talk exactly as if you were a dentist.
* * * * It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
* * * * It produces a false impression.

One could insert "antenna designer" for "dentist" to the same effect.
As for your fond attachment to Margaret Rutherford, let us take a leaf
from the script where she appears in full character of Miss prism:

Lady Bracknell - Is this Miss prism a female of repellent aspect,
* * * * remotely connected with education? *It contained the manuscript of
a three-volume novel of more than usually revolting
* * * * sentimentality.

Miss prism - [grows pale and quails. She looks anxiously round as if
* * * * desirous to escape.]

*** Confirmatio ***
Let's see, Oscar Wilde wrote this at the end of the 19th century,
where much of your reading has been stalled in arrested development.
There is a reference to large written works (three volumes). *The
implication being offered is such rambling work can be easily summed
up as the usually revolting sentimentality. *And it is all brought
together in the character played by Margaret Rutherford. *It shouldn't
take a leap of intelligence to note her character name of prism, and
the work done with prisms by Newton.

*** Peroratio ***

I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Lady Bracknell - This noise is extremely unpleasant.
* * * * It sounds as if he was having an argument.
* * * * I dislike arguments of any kind.
* * * * They are always vulgar, and often convincing.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

This thread is hilarious ROTFLAMO . I just cant figure who is the
comic and whio is the straight man.

Welcome back Art, You may know nothing of antennas but you are
certainly the master of tolls.


Jimmie

Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I find it interesting the difference in thinking
between the different news groups where only a few can manipulate the
whole to attack.

I cannot beat Will Roger's advice: "Be sure you are
right, and then go on ahead."

For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
which I have actually measured on the bench.

A PT Barnum quote would have more apropos. So is your delay measurement
shown on your web page?

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
which I have actually measured on the bench.

A PT Barnum quote would have more apropos. So is your delay measurement
shown on your web page?

I wrote the web page before I made the measurement
but I reported the measurement on this newsgroup
about two years ago.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
For instance, I'm absolutely sure I am right about
the delay through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil
which I have actually measured on the bench.

A PT Barnum quote would have more apropos. So is your delay
measurement shown on your web page?

I wrote the web page before I made the measurement
but I reported the measurement on this newsgroup
about two years ago.

Ah. So you didn't actually follow Will Rogers advice to:
"Be sure you are right, and then go on ahead."

But we already knew that. :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Ah. So you didn't actually follow Will Rogers advice to:
"Be sure you are right, and then go on ahead."

I was sure I was right and then made the measurements
that proved it. The established laws of physics don't
require additional measurements. Have you proved
Maxwell's equations lately?

When one needs to delay a signal, one can install a
coil to accomplish that need. Why is it so hard to
accept that coils cause delays?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com