"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Too late David
But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use
the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are
you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the
Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful
graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of
yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this
group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and
Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing is a intrusion of new math
into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws
dropped in ignorance when the term was used.

there is no 'equilibrium' used in the electromagnetics texts in my
collection that i can find. 'steady state' is the closest, but that is
normally used to refer to the response of a system after the transient
response has died out. 'equilibrium' is often used in thermodynamics, but
any analogy to that in electromagnetics is useless as it refers to a state
where there is no energy flow, and if energy isn't flowing then you have no
radiation. 'equilibrium' could also refer to a mechanical system that has
reached 'steady state' or a stable state, but again similar to the
thermodynamic use it is useless for electromagnetics... maybe for
electrostatic or static magnetic fields, but not for radiation.

On Sep 1, 4:04*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Too late David
But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use
the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are
you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the
Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful
graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of
yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this
group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and
Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing *is a intrusion of new math
into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws
dropped in ignorance when the term was used.

there is no 'equilibrium' used in the electromagnetics texts in my
collection that i can find. *'steady state' is the closest, but that is
normally used to refer to the response of a system after the transient
response has died out. *'equilibrium' is often used in thermodynamics, but
any analogy to that in electromagnetics is useless as it refers to a state
where there is no energy flow, and if energy isn't flowing then you have no
radiation. *'equilibrium' could also refer to a mechanical system that has
reached 'steady state' or a stable state, but again similar to the
thermodynamic use it is useless for electromagnetics... maybe for
electrostatic or static magnetic fields, but not for radiation.

Thanks for the response David. I will have to look at my books
regarding basic laws which are all connected to Maxwell's laws. A case
in point is the tank circuit which is seen as being in equilibrium and
where there is current flow and which I state is the electrical
circuit for radiation that is totally in accordance with the laws of
Maxwell. If you agree it can be used for a electrostatic field then
you are agreeing to any circuit which contains a capacitor with its
own contained electrostatic field. I agree that the term is not
presently in the books
which is why progress has been stunted and the reason for my
disclosure but I assure you that this is an error of the education
system since equilibrium is the basic datum line for all laws
including electrical. As an over check on my position antenna programs
will always
point to a non planar form in equilibrium per Maxwells laws so with
the assumption that programmers did use Maxwell's equations correctly
then my findings have been confirmed
Hang on for a while and I will report back on my findings as well as
Wilkedia type of definitions. Since the Universe is considered to have
an electrical foundation which includes the four forces of the
standard model then without the Universe
achieving a point of equilibrium we can all be seen as traveling thru
the Universe at the speed of light with no end to motion to place us
in a state of balance, a terrible thought if we cannot rely on seeing
the sunrise every day.
Regards
Art

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

"Resonance phenomena on Yagi arrays"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1981CEEJ....6....9T


BTW, this link has to do with resonance of the yagi in a narrowband
range just below the director array cutoff frequency, and nothing to do
with the driven element.

Google can be your friend, but when used without vetting the results can
sometimes lead to embarrassment. In this group, it's nothing like the
nonsense spouted by Art and some others however, so no worries.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 1, 7:09*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:04*pm, "Dave" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

Too late David
But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use
the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are
you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the
Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful
graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of
yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this
group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and
Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing *is a intrusion of new math
into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws
dropped in ignorance when the term was used.

there is no 'equilibrium' used in the electromagnetics texts in my
collection that i can find. *'steady state' is the closest, but that is
normally used to refer to the response of a system after the transient
response has died out. *'equilibrium' is often used in thermodynamics, but
any analogy to that in electromagnetics is useless as it refers to a state
where there is no energy flow, and if energy isn't flowing then you have no
radiation. *'equilibrium' could also refer to a mechanical system that has
reached 'steady state' or a stable state, but again similar to the
thermodynamic use it is useless for electromagnetics... maybe for
electrostatic or static magnetic fields, but not for radiation.

Thanks for the response David. I will have to look at my books
regarding basic laws which are all connected to Maxwell's laws. A case
in point is the tank circuit which is seen as being in equilibrium and
where there is current flow and which I state is the electrical
circuit for radiation that is totally in accordance with the laws of
Maxwell. If you agree it can be used for a electrostatic field then
you are agreeing to any circuit which contains a capacitor with its
own contained electrostatic field. I agree that the term is not
presently in the books
which is why progress has been stunted and the reason for my
disclosure but I assure you that this is an error of the education
system since equilibrium is the basic datum line for all laws
including electrical. As an over check on my position antenna programs
will always
point to a non planar form in equilibrium per Maxwells laws so with
the assumption that programmers did use Maxwell's equations correctly
then my findings have been confirmed
Hang on for a while and I will report back on my findings as well as
Wilkedia type of definitions. Since the Universe is considered to have
an electrical foundation which includes the four forces of the
standard model then without the Universe
*achieving a point of equilibrium we can all be seen as traveling thru
the Universe at the speed of light with no end to motion to place us
in a state of balance, a terrible thought if we cannot rely on seeing
the sunrise every day.
Regards
Art

On a quick google on Newton equilibrium there does appear that
equilibrium is not liked
say as much as "balanced" Thus science is essentially changing laws to
today's intent
and at the same time describing the laws with respect to Earth and not
the Universe.
I can see now where so much reference is to gravity and not the
combination of Gravity
accompanied by the spin action of Corriolis, where neither can exist
without the other in cosmic terms. Thus every action and opposite
action considers the Corriolis as non existant
such that Gravity alone should be part of the Standard Model. It now
can be seen that the
"intent" of the laws has changed over the years without emphasising
the "core" of the laws as intended by the providers. Fortunately NASA
does not have to discover new laws for
each and every part of the Universe since the laws we use are
Universal and not just confined to Earth as we know it. Thus I,
coming from the Olde World, still adheres to the intent of the law in
macro style where others understand it as decifered by the new World
in micro form for a more understandable relationship in todays
education. In other words
first principles in education has given way to continuos plagurism or
learning by rote.

Corriolis deals with mass, so it is incorporated with the same core Math
that deals with Gravity, Inertia, Acceleration. Corriolis really isn't a
"force".

However, since you bring up the idea of "spin", it seems to have become more
important than the laws of Physics in some classrooms.


"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 1, 7:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:04 pm, "Dave" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Too late David
But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use
the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are
you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the
Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful
graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of
yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this
group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and
Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing is a intrusion of new math
into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws
dropped in ignorance when the term was used.

there is no 'equilibrium' used in the electromagnetics texts in my
collection that i can find. 'steady state' is the closest, but that is
normally used to refer to the response of a system after the transient
response has died out. 'equilibrium' is often used in thermodynamics,
but
any analogy to that in electromagnetics is useless as it refers to a
state
where there is no energy flow, and if energy isn't flowing then you have
no
radiation. 'equilibrium' could also refer to a mechanical system that
has
reached 'steady state' or a stable state, but again similar to the
thermodynamic use it is useless for electromagnetics... maybe for
electrostatic or static magnetic fields, but not for radiation.

Thanks for the response David. I will have to look at my books
regarding basic laws which are all connected to Maxwell's laws. A case
in point is the tank circuit which is seen as being in equilibrium and
where there is current flow and which I state is the electrical
circuit for radiation that is totally in accordance with the laws of
Maxwell. If you agree it can be used for a electrostatic field then
you are agreeing to any circuit which contains a capacitor with its
own contained electrostatic field. I agree that the term is not
presently in the books
which is why progress has been stunted and the reason for my
disclosure but I assure you that this is an error of the education
system since equilibrium is the basic datum line for all laws
including electrical. As an over check on my position antenna programs
will always
point to a non planar form in equilibrium per Maxwells laws so with
the assumption that programmers did use Maxwell's equations correctly
then my findings have been confirmed
Hang on for a while and I will report back on my findings as well as
Wilkedia type of definitions. Since the Universe is considered to have
an electrical foundation which includes the four forces of the
standard model then without the Universe
achieving a point of equilibrium we can all be seen as traveling thru
the Universe at the speed of light with no end to motion to place us
in a state of balance, a terrible thought if we cannot rely on seeing
the sunrise every day.
Regards
Art

On a quick google on Newton equilibrium there does appear that
equilibrium is not liked
say as much as "balanced" Thus science is essentially changing laws to
today's intent
and at the same time describing the laws with respect to Earth and not
the Universe.
I can see now where so much reference is to gravity and not the
combination of Gravity
accompanied by the spin action of Corriolis, where neither can exist
without the other in cosmic terms. Thus every action and opposite
action considers the Corriolis as non existant
such that Gravity alone should be part of the Standard Model. It now
can be seen that the
"intent" of the laws has changed over the years without emphasising
the "core" of the laws as intended by the providers. Fortunately NASA
does not have to discover new laws for
each and every part of the Universe since the laws we use are
Universal and not just confined to Earth as we know it. Thus I,
coming from the Olde World, still adheres to the intent of the law in
macro style where others understand it as decifered by the new World
in micro form for a more understandable relationship in todays
education. In other words
first principles in education has given way to continuos plagurism or
learning by rote.

JB wrote:
Corriolis deals with mass, so it is incorporated with the same core Math
that deals with Gravity, Inertia, Acceleration. Corriolis really isn't a
"force".

However, since you bring up the idea of "spin", it seems to have become more
important than the laws of Physics in some classrooms.


Given that Coriolis is an effect, what would be the cause of the
supposed spin?

Do the spun up particles that accelerate at the speed of light and are
replaced by other particles follow a curved trajectory through the
universe? Do the particles that replace them have identical spin?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:14:06 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Given that Coriolis is an effect, what would be the cause of the
supposed spin?

Not an effect, not a cause, not a force, not an energy, not a power,
not even a spin: Coriolis is a twisted perception.

If Art were to stumble in the woods and saw you flip simply because
his frame of reference swished, would you feel it? Were you pushed in
- or knocked up? Did you trip on the wall - or did the floor fall on
you? Would you fall clockwise, or counter-clockwise depending on
which hemisphere you are in?

Most of the last few days posts read like a bad LSD trip for a patent
examiner.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC