On Sep 4, 3:13*pm, tom wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The speed of light.

Acceleration isn't expressed as C.

Does RF energy have mass?

If it does that could explain the weight gain over my years as a ham.

tom
K0TAR

Weight gain is all in your head

On Sep 4, 11:22*am, (J. B. Wood) wrote:
In article
, Art



Unwin wrote:
It seems that some do not understand what the Corriolis force is so
here goes
When the Big Bang ocurred all energy was in *an arbitrary boundary
just like the Sun is. When the forces *( four forces of the Standard
model) could not be contained with in the boundary the boundary broke
which as scientists state was the begining of our Universe. Before the
arbitrary boundary broke it is a state of equilibrium ( This is also
duplicated by the Sun) You can visualize a ball which contains all
energy by placing vectors all around the inside where for every vector
on the inside there is an equal and opposite on the outside. Tho
energy cannot be created or destroyed, kinetic energy can occur at the
expense of potential energy such that the outside vectors are over
come. *The boundary breaks and the excess forces are released until
the boundary is able to return to a state of equilibrium. Now when the
break occurs it is *at the point of a particular vector such that the
breakage is created by a shearing action, as the forces in question
was not aligned, with spin. Thus when any energy,particles etc *they
escaped with a spin action which force forces to balance requires an
equal and opposite reaction and the Corriolis force is that component.
Without the Corriolis component we could not remain on this Earth and
gravity could not exist. Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.

Art,

Since there is no "" on the subject line I assume you are the initiator
of this post and I have to ask how it's relevant to this newsgroup. *You
have also attempted to initiate other off-topic threads. *Can't you find a
more appropriate ng or forum for these posts rather than show a disregard
for those coming here to seek info on ham antennas and related issues? *At
the very least I would appreciate including the standard "OT:" prefix on
the subject lines of off-topic posts. *These kinds of posts illustrate why
moderated newsgroups become necessary. *Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) * * * *e-mail: * * * * * * * * * *
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

Oh shut up. there is nothing sincere in your posts

On Sep 4, 8:36*am, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 3, 10:33 am, Art Unwin wrote:

And I imagine that there are still many readers world wide
who are still wondering what constitutes "equilibrium" in
an antenna system. *

not any more, he defined it just the other day, equilibrium==isotropic.

No David, I just went along with your interpretation of same in the
U.S.
For my self I will stick to equilibrium as stated in any dictionary.
So I accept your terms as one to use in the US electrical arena
because you get upset as it may sometimes be equivalent to
equilibrium. But I am not going to fight that battle.
Personally, I am beginning to think hams mix the terms resonant and
equilibrium or is it just the U.S. One day some body is going to say
gottcha that is inevitable with so many hits
but that is not one of them.

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:13 pm, tom wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The speed of light.
Acceleration isn't expressed as C.
Does RF energy have mass?
If it does that could explain the weight gain over my years as a ham.

tom
K0TAR

Weight gain is all in your head

For someone who complains about criticism you sure are being an ass lately.

tom
K0TAR

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 3:29 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

What is the acceleration of RF?
The speed of light.

and you call yourself a mechanical engineer?? how are speed and
acceleration related in your mechanical world?

Because acceleration is following a parabolic curve beyond which it
has attained the speed of light. I cannot determine the acceleration
as that is a determinate of. L. and C As it happens the speed of
light was determined after radiation which to my mind puts it firmly
into the particle arena

i asked about pure mechanical relationship, what is the relationship between
speed and acceleration??

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 8:36 am, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 3, 10:33 am, Art Unwin wrote:

And I imagine that there are still many readers world wide
who are still wondering what constitutes "equilibrium" in
an antenna system.

not any more, he defined it just the other day, equilibrium==isotropic.

No David, I just went along with your interpretation of same in the
U.S.
For my self I will stick to equilibrium as stated in any dictionary.
So I accept your terms as one to use in the US electrical arena
because you get upset as it may sometimes be equivalent to
equilibrium. But I am not going to fight that battle.
Personally, I am beginning to think hams mix the terms resonant and
equilibrium or is it just the U.S. One day some body is going to say
gottcha that is inevitable with so many hits
but that is not one of them.

there is no reference for 'equilibrium' to be applied to electromagnetic
radiation. is just doesn't exist. so you have now given up all your
credibility by not sticking with what you admitted was an equivalent of your
term 'equilibium' in 'isotropic'.

On Sep 3, 7:17*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Dr Cohen (chip) gave up in trying educate the psuedo experts of
his findings because this group was not interested in change.

He gave up when AOL dropped Usenet and he couldn't use his many
aliases.

On Sep 4, 4:17*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:13 pm, tom wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The speed of light.
Acceleration isn't expressed as C.
Does RF energy have mass?
If it does that could explain the weight gain over my years as a ham.

tom
K0TAR

Weight gain is all in your head

For someone who complains about criticism you sure are being an ass lately.

tom
K0TAR

No. I just not going to let you push me around. If the group want to
act like an arse then I am happy to follow suit. When civility returns
to this group I will be happy to reciprocate.
Just a question of choices taken

If I say sincerely yours does that get me off the hook?

On Sep 4, 5:00*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 3:29 pm, "Dave" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

What is the acceleration of RF?
The speed of light.

and you call yourself a mechanical engineer?? how are speed and
acceleration related in your mechanical world?

Because acceleration is following a parabolic curve beyond which it
has attained the speed of light. I cannot determine the acceleration
as that is a determinate of. L. and *C As it happens the speed of
light was determined after radiation which to my mind puts it firmly
into the particle arena

i asked about pure mechanical relationship, what is the relationship between
speed and acceleration??

The applicable law by Newton states ut +ft sq/2. Without a value for
time acceleration cannot be stated. The circuit is one of a tank
circuit so one has to state the frequency as well.Acceleration is the
ratio between root W.L.as well as frequency so again acceleration
cannot be stated without all the facts. Time is measured by the time
two fields are interacting after which the particle maintaines a
straight line projection. The interaction is parabolic in nature in
all cases. The fields are electrical by the way tho all mechanical
movements can be expressed in electrical terms

Art Unwin wrote:

No. I just not going to let you push me around. If the group want to
act like an arse then I am happy to follow suit. When civility returns
to this group I will be happy to reciprocate.
Just a question of choices taken

If I say sincerely yours does that get me off the hook?

Nope. You're still an ass. I believe the term the current geek
generation uses is "asshat".

And your mistaking criticism for being pushed around. You are the one
calling pretty much everyone, including those that have managed to make
a living designing and installing antenna systems, idiots. Expect to
get hard pushback when you do that, especially since you haven't managed
to produce one solid provable fact or testable hypothesis for the group.

Bafflegab is just bafflegab, Art, and that's all anyone's seen to date.

tom
K0TAR