Art Unwin wrote in news:cf5b3115-db1d-42a5-98cb-
:

Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.


Of course torque is a force. Ask any auto mechanic.

I am more familier with the Corriolis force as
it applies to weather. IE: the spin of huricanes,
the rotation of weather around low pressure systems.

On Sep 4, 7:21*pm, Gordon wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:cf5b3115-db1d-42a5-98cb-
:

Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.

Of course torque is a force. *Ask any auto mechanic.

I am more familier with the Corriolis force as
it applies to weather. *IE: the spin of huricanes,
the rotation of weather around low pressure systems.

Excellent Gordon and the particles are connected to the weather
When particles arrive from outer space they reside on diamagnetic
substances and water is one. So when there is an updraft clinging to
the water droplets are these particles which gather a charge with
elevation until the moisture cools and there is no room for them to
stay. These particles are now electrically static charged where when
broken loose move to ground or the other side of the capacitor. Thus
we all see a lightning strike which is an electical static field. This
same charge circulates the earth one way above the equator and and ony
way below the equator such that the shearing action occurs which is
the circular motions that we see everywhere in life. These same
charges cling to space suits in outer space because the human body is
mainly water. NASA has had some luck by discharging the suits to a
ground as one would do with a capacitor so the abrasive particles do
not enter a ship. Without charge the particles are basically inert
like a unbound electron'
For the life of me I do not understand this stance that a shearing
action does not create spin or torque. A real crazy group of experts.
As far as pressure deviations in weather this is exacty the force we
see in eddy currents of electricity as well as mechanical things such
as tornadoes. All four forces involved in the Big Bang are the only
forces involved in the Universe because of the Newtonian laws so use
of the boundary laws are indispensible
with respect to all that happens, chemical, electrical, mechanical or
what every where energy units such as volts etc are inter convertible
metrics. And the electrostatic field is a isolated phenomina that has
zero connections to laws of this Universe
Thanks for your involvement on this issue.
Regards
Art

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:49:07 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:


"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .

... attacking a persons background, education, personality, appearance,
and wallpaper is little better than a character assassination and
should be avoided. Discuss the ideas, not the person.

Nonsense. Personal attacks are the surest way to victory. Study any
successful politician and you will have no need for me to explain further.

I said "avoided", not eliminated entirely. There are places where
character assasinations are both useful and successful. As you
indicate, politics is one of these. There's also advertising,
competative bidding, and stealing someones girlfriend. All is fair in
love, war, politics, advertising, but not antenna design.

Examine the dreck that fills up your mailbox on Friday and Saturday before
any election day. It's not pro-candidate; it's not pro-anything; it's all
god-damn-my-opponent -- and they're called "hit pieces" for good reason.

You're being too generous. It has been demonstrated that candidates
can win an election without ever mentioning any issues. Even the dead
have won elections. However, none of these politicians have ever
designed an antenna, so I suspect that this phenomenon would not be
particularly applicable.

Saint Edward of Massachusetts, aka Teddy Kennedy, was civil when it suited
him but he engaged in the vilest of character assassination* the rest of the
time. It didn't matter as long as he could cast his target upon the trash
heap.

Hint: You don't make it to the top in politics (and business) without
stepping over a few bodies. Much as I would like this to cease, I've
seen no indications that this will ever change. However, with debates
over antenna design, we still have the option to act in a reasonably
civil manner. In general, most of those posting questions and answers
in this group are quite civil and usually (not always) concentrate on
the merits of the design or problem, rather than attacking the
invidividual. Simply demonstrating that there is a class of
politicians that violate good taste, proper manners, and logical
arguementation, does not automatically give everyone in this newsgroup
a license to act in a similar manner.

*Bork was a man's name. Senator Kennedy made it a verb.

Name calling also is common. Same logic. Just because politicians do
it, doesn't license everyone to follow in the same manner.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

For my self I will stick to equilibrium as stated in any dictionary.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equilibrium
"A stable situation in which forces cancel one another."

That suggests an equation, where the canceling forces are on opposite
sides of the equal sign.

I'll supply the equal sign. You supply the rest as in:
force_1 = force_2
What are the two forces that are being balanced or canceled?



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

"Dave Platt" wrote
...
In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I forgot to connect my comments to the original question. Sorry(tm).
You're correct. There's no way to get a good isotropic radiator
pattern with a simple vertical radiator. However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

The difference in pattern between a half-wavelength dipole,
and an infinitesimally-short dipole (i.e. one whose length
approaches a point source) is actually quite small.

A dipole is always the two monopoles and never a point source. Only monopole
is a point source.
S*

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Dave Platt" wrote
...
In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I forgot to connect my comments to the original question. Sorry(tm).
You're correct. There's no way to get a good isotropic radiator
pattern with a simple vertical radiator. However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

The difference in pattern between a half-wavelength dipole,
and an infinitesimally-short dipole (i.e. one whose length
approaches a point source) is actually quite small.

A dipole is always the two monopoles and never a point source. Only
monopole is a point source.
S*

Nonsense. Only a point can be a point source.

The principle of the infinitesimal electric doublet is the hypothetical
result of making the lengths of the elements of a balanced dipole
vanishingly small. This is useful to quantify the characteristics of the
limiting case but, because of its inherent axial symmetry, it still has the
form of a dipole and the same kind of radiation pattern with linear
polarisation and no radiation in the directions aligned with the ends of the
dipole (for the reason I gave earlier in this thread).

Monopole antennas are developed from dipoles by substituting one of the
elements, often using a 'reflection' of the remaining element in a ground
plane. Their characteristics are different from those of the parent dipole
because of this substitution but they still have the same kind of
axially-symmetric radiation pattern, with linear polarisation and no
radiation in the direction of the end of the monopole.

A point source is a hypothetical 'device' that radiates equally in all
directions. Obviously this could not be realised using a monopole because
that would provide the wrong radiation pattern.

A polarisation can be assigned to a point source, for the sake of comparison
with real antennas (which is how the point source is used), just as a point
source can be considered as transmitting or receiving a signal - but that
doesn't mean a physical antenna can be made that has the same
characteristics, that can be made to transmit or receive.

Chris

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 7:21 pm, Gordon wrote:
And the electrostatic field is a isolated phenomina that has
zero connections to laws of this Universe

Another golden quote! thanks art, i needed a good laugh this morning!

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave Platt" wrote
...
In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I forgot to connect my comments to the original question. Sorry(tm).
You're correct. There's no way to get a good isotropic radiator
pattern with a simple vertical radiator. However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

The difference in pattern between a half-wavelength dipole,
and an infinitesimally-short dipole (i.e. one whose length
approaches a point source) is actually quite small.

A dipole is always the two monopoles and never a point source. Only
monopole is a point source.
S*

there is no such thing as a monopole antenna. unless you have discovered
the magnetic monopole somewhere?

Sal M. Onella wrote:

Saint Edward of Massachusetts, aka Teddy Kennedy, was civil when it suited
him but he engaged in the vilest of character assassination* the rest of the
time. It didn't matter as long as he could cast his target upon the trash
heap.

Sal, respectfully, as long as you and the folks who identify with you
try to turn every stinking conversation into a political bull****
throwing party against the damm leeburuls and socialists and commies,
You'll just make yourself look kind of well, maniacally obsessed.

Not a leebural, but tired off all that crap.

Just sayin'.

Gordon wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:cf5b3115-db1d-42a5-98cb-
:

Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.


Of course torque is a force. Ask any auto mechanic.

I am more familier with the Corriolis force as
it applies to weather. IE: the spin of huricanes,
the rotation of weather around low pressure systems.

And that is what the Coriolis force is. It's a mechanical effect, and
not an electrical one.

Art is trying to convince us that EM energy is also a mechanical force,
consisting of particles that fly off the end of our antennas like little
turds. The ramifications of that means that everything we thought we
know about RF - and in fact all physics is completely wrong.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -