On Sep 14, 3:30*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:22*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Bottom line is.
If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are
just a follower and not a true Engineer.

I submit that industry-recognized, expert sources on the subject of
antennas such as Kraus, Balanis, Johnson/Jasik, George Brown etc were
and are much more likely to understand and respect those first
principles.
Yes that is normally true but how many people at the table has asked
for the salt
when it was right in frony of them?




Anyone can develop and publicize a theme about the operation of
antennas.

I consider that a difficult task without running into trouble with
existing laws.



Scientifically PROVING that such a theme is correct takes a true
"Engineer."

When you deliver a theme or paper in front of college graduates,
professionals and
above, one assumes that they are fully aware of the basic laws
involved. Since your only connection to antenna engineering is the
repetitive pushing the "on" and "off" button at a local radio station
as its resident engineer it is more than possible that you have not
had a academic training. Your past posts gives some truth to that
statement, tho it is possible that I will have to stand corrected if,
as with many, age has taken its toll.
As you have stated in the past
.. "your move"!
Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia. Alternatively
ask the question from your local academic centre where interllectuals
reside who have more knowledge of such things than either of us will
ever attain.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is
presented.


RF

On Sep 14, 4:11 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

(Fry) I submit that industry-recognized, expert sources on the subject of
antennas such as Kraus, Balanis, Johnson/Jasik, George Brown etc were
and are much more likely to understand and respect those first
principles.

(Unwin) Yes that is normally true but how many people at the table has
asked for the salt when it was right in frony of them?

So YOU have the salt compared to the names I mentioned, and their
published documents? Not very likely.

You would be better off, Art, and create less animosity for yourself
if you relied more on their work, and less on your own "themes."

RF

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
The above also solves the
identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the
Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven
nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing
laws of Classical Physics.

you violate the range of the weak and strong forces. they are both confined
to the nucleus of the atom and have nothing to do with the conduction band
electrons.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements.
For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in
complience of existing laws.
You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying
field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position
where no body provided academic proof.
Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its
legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space
Agency gives him some what of a track record. I then found out that
one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school.
True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault!
Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give
you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in
independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a
book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no
understanding.
Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which
follows the existing laws
of Classical physics. At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory
with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing
laws. If you have doubts then contact your alma
to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for
the PTO printing of my
present concluding patent request such that all details are available
for inspection.
This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution
is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can
then continue the discussion.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:40:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:


"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
The above also solves the
identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the
Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven
nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing
laws of Classical Physics.

you violate the range of the weak and strong forces. they are both confined
to the nucleus of the atom and have nothing to do with the conduction band
electrons.

Ah!

But if you extrapolate the nucleus as the sun of the solar system, the
earth as an electron; then the conduction band is easily managed with
a weak force as significant as a bite of bread stuck to the roof of
your mouth with peanut butter.

Peanut butter is diamagnetic, and if you buy the crunchy style, you
get the combination of waves and particles.

[this premonitory peanutbutter presentation posting possibly protected
by provisional patent pending]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sep 14, 12:03*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current
applied creates an increase in radiation...

NOW ?? *This has been true forever.

... and where the model is seen
to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is
basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the
computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the
decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator etc

Decreasing the feedpoint impedance of an antenna to 0 +j0 ohms (if
that were possible) does not maximize radiation.

The first term in the antenna impedance specification in a practical
antenna consists mainly of radiation resistance -- which is required
in order for radiation to occur. *Radiation resistance is a function
of the electrical length, diameter and form of the radiator exposed to
space. *If it is zero then there is no radiation.

Higher radiation resistances lead to higher efficiencies for the
antenna SYSTEM, because then the power radiated can be much greater
than what is dissipated in the relatively smaller I^2R losses of the
system.

RF
__________

Art,

How do you respond to my comments to your statements above, seeing as
though you have responded to later r.r.a.a. posts with no further
response to the above sequence?

NO RESPONSE from you easily may be taken to understand that you cannot
defend/support your position on such subjects.

If your lack of response was an oversight, then probably most of us
will understand.

But what IS your position on this subject?

RF

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.
then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements.
For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in
complience of existing laws.
You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying
field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position
where no body provided academic proof.
Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its
legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space
Agency gives him some what of a track record. I then found out that
one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school.
True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault!
Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give
you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in
independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a
book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no
understanding.
Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which
follows the existing laws
of Classical physics. At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory
with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing
laws. If you have doubts then contact your alma
to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for
the PTO printing of my
present concluding patent request such that all details are available
for inspection.
This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution
is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can
then continue the discussion.

So Art again fails to step up when asked to prove something.

"I'M RIGHT!!! PROVE ME WRONG!!!" is Art's continual wail. No Art, you
have to prove you are right, and just claiming it isn't even a start.

FRAUD == ART

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 14, 6:35*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:40:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
....
The above also solves the
identification of the Weak Force which provided completion of the
Standard Model as envisioned by Einstein. All is now of a proven
nature UNTIL my peers can point to where it deviates from existing
laws of Classical Physics.

you violate the range of the weak and strong forces. *they are both confined
to the nucleus of the atom and have nothing to do with the conduction band
electrons.

Ah!

But if you extrapolate the nucleus as the sun of the solar system, the
earth as an electron; then the conduction band is easily managed with
a weak force as significant as a bite of bread stuck to the roof of
your mouth with peanut butter.

Peanut butter is diamagnetic, and if you buy the crunchy style, you
get the combination of waves and particles.

[this premonitory peanutbutter presentation posting possibly protected
by provisional patent pending]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You used David as your role model! You also stamped all over Dr Davis.
You would be better off standing on David's shoulders and staying in
lock step with him and hold that silly tongue of yours for your next
partner.

On Sep 14, 7:20*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 14, 12:03*pm, Richard Fry wrote:

On Sep 14, 11:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current
applied creates an increase in radiation...

NOW ?? *This has been true forever.

... and where the model is seen
to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is
basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the
computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the
decrease of impedance of the energy robbing metallic radiator etc

Decreasing the feedpoint impedance of an antenna to 0 +j0 ohms (if
that were possible) does not maximize radiation.

The first term in the antenna impedance specification in a practical
antenna consists mainly of radiation resistance -- which is required
in order for radiation to occur. *Radiation resistance is a function
of the electrical length, diameter and form of the radiator exposed to
space. *If it is zero then there is no radiation.

Higher radiation resistances lead to higher efficiencies for the
antenna SYSTEM, because then the power radiated can be much greater
than what is dissipated in the relatively smaller I^2R losses of the
system.

RF

__________

Art,

How do you respond to my comments to your statements above, seeing as
though you have responded to later r.r.a.a. posts with no further
response to the above sequence?

NO RESPONSE from you easily may be taken to understand that you cannot
defend/support your position on such subjects.

If your lack of response was an oversight, then probably most of us
will understand.

But what IS your position on this subject?

RF

Sorry, but that is how it is. I do respond to some statements but not
all.