[[email protected]]

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:22Â*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:30Â*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04Â*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?

With Maxwell's equations, which are a set of four partial differential
equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources,
charge density and current density.

With Gauss's flux theorem, which is a law relating the distribution of
electric charge to the resulting electric field.

With Faraday's law of induction which relates the induced electromotive
force in a closed circuit to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux
through the circuit.

Reading the above means nothing, you have to understand it

Yep, which you obviously don't.

However, you can't with arm waving rambling.

snip rambling

As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers

I have never in my life been a lab technition (sic).
Keep trying you should be able to master it



snip rambling

You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician

You have no clue what experience I have.
O yes I do, I read your postings in the archives to understand what
level you are.

Oh, no you don't and you have no clue what I have done, what I do, or
what credentials I might have as I don't post such information.

snip ravings about "equilibrium"

I have yet to see a single equation from you that supports ANY of your
ranting nonsense.

snip ravings about "masters" and ignored "truth" revealed only to you


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 6, 7:49*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:22*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:30*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?

With Maxwell's equations, which are a set of four partial differential
equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources,
charge density and current density.

With Gauss's flux theorem, which is a law relating the distribution of
electric charge to the resulting electric field.

With Faraday's law of induction which relates the induced electromotive
force in a closed circuit to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux
through the circuit.

Reading the above means nothing, you have to understand it

Yep, which you obviously don't.



However, you can't with arm waving rambling.

snip rambling

As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers

I have never in my life been a lab technition (sic).
Keep trying you should be able to master it

snip rambling

You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician

You have no clue what experience I have.
O yes I do, I read your postings in the archives to understand what
level you are.

Oh, no you don't and you have no clue what I have done, what I do, or
what credentials I might have as I don't post such information.

snip ravings about "equilibrium"

I have yet to see a single equation from you that supports ANY of your
ranting nonsense.

and you never will. just generic hand waving and wild rants with no
basis in reality.

[Mike Kaliski]

snip
I have an example
of that on my page Unwin antennas where I specifically state the
rudiments of current flow. As yet nobody has supplied scientific data
to show that flow is otherwise. Thru out the ages it has been
understood that the datum line for the laws of physics is the state of
equilibrium such that all forces are accounted for. For radio this
requires the use of radiators of a full wavelength which supplies
equilibrium and resoinance. Yet for some reason many including Kraus
has rejected this undeniable fact, Thus when applying Maxwells
equations they can never attain 100 percent efficiency. This can ONLY
be attained when an array is resonant and in equilibrium as must be
the individual radiators that consist same. On top of that, there is
no reason that a radiator should be straight only that it is in a
state of equilibrium. snip

Art,

I think this paragraph may be one of the reasons for all the protests. It
isn't necessary to achieve 100% efficiency or to use a full wavelength
radiator in order to broadcast (or receive) a radio signal. It may be
desirable, but it isn't necessary. Modern equipment has sufficient power to
overcome the inefficiencies when transmitting and can hear signals well
below the noise floor when receiving. A 50% efficient antenna is fine for
most applications and perhaps 10% or less will do at a pinch.

The patent office floors are littered with designs for better, more
effective mousetraps, but that 99 cent (pence) bit of wood with a powerful
spring will kill mice just as dead. :-)

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

If your antenna calculations show 100% power transfer to the antenna and
100% power radiated, then that should be capable of being substantiated by
standard measuring techniques in the near and far fields.

If your antenna only shows these readings when a similar receiving antenna
is used and attached to the measuring equipment (rather than a standard
dipole) then you have either invented an entirely new field of physics, or
the calculations are wrong.

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than others contained
within similar physical dimensions. A full wavelength resonant radiator must
theoretically be better than a fractional or loaded system. But proving that
it is worthwhile, better and more convenient to Joe Public is a much harder
sell. Your ideas about particles might be correct, but do they give a better
understanding and predictions of antenna behaviour than the currently
accepted theories? In order to succeed, I would suggest that your theory
would need to match all current observations but then go on to make some new
predictions about antennas which can be measured and verified. That is the
way that western science has progressed since the Greek philosophers tried
to explain the world around them. Some Asian cultures are allegedly more
amenable to accepting that some things in the world are just the way they
are and require less stringent proof. It allowed them to leapfrog the West
and make significant practical developments of everyday useful stuff without
worrying about how it all worked exactly. The only problem with this
approach is that if you hit a wall in development, it usually isn't clear
how to make further improvements or solve the problem except by trial and
error.

Keep up the good work.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

[Bill[_4_]]

On Jan 7, 2:13*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:


Art,


I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than
others contained within similar physical dimensions.


Mike G0ULI

WHAT antennas would those be?

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
snip
I have an example
of that on my page Unwin antennas where I specifically state the
rudiments of current flow. As yet nobody has supplied scientific data
to show that flow is otherwise. Thru out the ages it has been
understood that the datum line for the laws of physics is the state of
equilibrium such that all forces are accounted for. For radio this
requires the use of radiators of a full wavelength which supplies
equilibrium and resoinance. Yet for some reason many including Kraus
has rejected this undeniable fact, Thus when applying Maxwells
equations they can never attain 100 percent efficiency. This can ONLY
be attained when an array is resonant and in equilibrium as must be
the individual radiators that consist same. On top of that, there is
no reason that a radiator should be straight only that it is in a
state of equilibrium. *snip

Art,

I think this paragraph may be one of the reasons for all the protests. It
isn't necessary to achieve 100% efficiency or to use a full wavelength
radiator in order to broadcast (or receive) a radio signal. It may be
desirable, but it isn't necessary. Modern equipment has sufficient power to
overcome the inefficiencies when transmitting and can hear signals well
below the noise floor when receiving. A 50% efficient antenna is fine for
most applications and perhaps 10% or less will do at a pinch.

The patent office floors are littered with designs for better, more
effective mousetraps, but that 99 cent (pence) bit of wood with a powerful
spring will kill mice just as dead. *:-)


all above agreed with


The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.


If your antenna calculations show 100% power transfer to the antenna and
100% power radiated, then that should be capable of being substantiated by
standard measuring techniques in the near and far fields.

Quite true


If your antenna only shows these readings when a similar receiving antenna
is used and attached to the measuring equipment (rather than a standard
dipole) then you have either invented an entirely new field of physics, or
the calculations are wrong.

I dont see it that way since a 4 ft dia mesh has many WL of wire
contained for top band so it should be able to choose its own route
for
a particular frequency resonance. The more WL you have the more likely
resonance would occur.

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than others contained
within similar physical dimensions. A full wavelength resonant radiator must
theoretically be better than a fractional or loaded system.
On my page I show instances of resonance using 6 inch samples of
mesh which match the amateur bands so i see it as a huge step with
respect to small radiators. also pundits state there is a need for
smaller broadcast antennas( cross field) without ground plain.
I personally see the advantage of double the skip distance even when
ground situated. Military would see similar advantages. I see the
confusion as purely my position that with respect to radio we simply
have particles without evidence of waves and the fact that from a
specific rule point equilibrium exists only at the period point and
not 1/2WL. It is the recognition of this mathematical point that
allows
both resonance and equiulibrium which allows for compression. To use a
1/2 wl is a violation of the universal rule, simple as that.

But proving that
it is worthwhile, better and more convenient to Joe Public is a much harder
sell.

That is true but if there really is a true need for a technology for
smaller volume radiators together with human shielding protection to
go along side present miniaturization, then it will sell itself.

Your ideas about particles might be correct, but do they give a
better
understanding and predictions of antenna behaviour than the currently
accepted theories? In order to succeed, I would suggest that your theory
would need to match all current observations but then go on to make some new
predictions about antennas which can be measured and verified. That is the
way that western science has progressed since the Greek philosophers tried
to explain the world around them. Some Asian cultures are allegedly more
amenable to accepting that some things in the world are just the way they
are and require less stringent proof. It allowed them to leapfrog the West
and make significant practical developments of everyday useful stuff without
worrying about how it all worked exactly. The only problem with this
approach is that if you hit a wall in development, it usually isn't clear
how to make further improvements or solve the problem except by trial and
error.

Yes, that is always true but I see as significant is that radiation
can now be shielded when used and is not automatically sky wave at
ground level and, ofcourse, that it is small. The old adage of putting
up as much wire that you can is neatly solved with mesh while staying
in equilibrium. What more can you want?
How many questions do we see for an antenna without room for a ground
plain? How many questions do we get for a broad band scanner antenna.
How can a submarine transmitt with out detection trailing a humoungos
radiator where the wash is seen for miles?
How can we prevent moon dust from contaminating rockets. It just
doesn't stop.
When you can transmit from ground level without height interference to
TOA you are effectively doubling the range for the same power.
On top of that the public is easily convinced of its use when the
advertisers state that damage to the brain cannot now possibly occur
because of shielding.
It just blows my mind that amateurs have lost interest in new antenna
design based purely on a mob that denies the possibility that it
cannot work without stating why.As for me I have no more need for a
tower.
Best regards
Art Unwin
The PTO did not turn down my response to questions regarding the first
patent application so I assume it will be awarded in good time.

Keep up the good work.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

[Bill[_4_]]

On Jan 6, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where
is made for displacement current to contain a static field.
I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where

From www.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

You are an idiot.

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 9:31*pm, Bill wrote:
On Jan 7, 2:13*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:



Art,

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than
others contained within similar physical dimensions.

Mike G0ULI

WHAT antennas would those be?

He clearly stated fractional and loaded antennas. What is so hard to
read what he stated?

[Richard Clark]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 02:13:43 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

It
isn't necessary to achieve 100% efficiency or to use a full wavelength
radiator in order to broadcast (or receive) a radio signal.

Hi Mike,

You are right, however, I suppose Art will walk away from this topic
as he had a month ago:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 some gomer wrote:

Following Maxwell's equations provides accountability of all forces
and NEC programs are very capable of showing this by divulging that
same 10% of missing energy.
By the addition of considerable textual chaff (not included here),
this last demand is saved from being embarrassingly close to:
How about supplying some facts to back up your claims so they can be
discussed?

Any NEC program (expressly allowed in the first statement's premise)
will show that a dipole:
1. In free space;
2. x coordinate -0.245714 wavelength;
3. x coordinate 0.245714 wavelength;
4. 11 segments;
5. 1mm diameter copper wire;
6. excited at first resonance

Result: 97.5%

So, clearly the first claim of 10% missing energy is a product of
misinformation and is easily accounted by the allowable method (NEC)
contained within the erroneous statement.

However, let's examine the source of that 2.5% loss. If I were to
simply use NEC's capacity to render the copper into perfect wire (no
other changes made to the parts 1. through 6 above); then

Result: 99.7%

Whoops!!!!! no copper, and still not perfect?

This, too, is accountable within NEC as accumulated math error of too
few samples (segments). So, we simple amend part 4. above to increase
the number of segments to 111; then

Result: 100.00%

*******************

I can fully expect the wheeze that the antenna is not in equilibrium
(sic). Without pointing out that what is already 100.00% efficiency
could not possibly be improved upon, I will instead increase the
frequency of excitation to put that structure into equilibrium (sic);
then

Result: 100.00%
or 0 improvement.

Having indulged the fantasies of equilibrium (sic), it is time to
press in the opposite direction, let's say to 1/10th equilibrium
(sic); then

Result: 100.00%
Howsaboutthat!?

*******************

So, using the allowable tools to investigate the claim of a missing
10% efficiency, it has been shown that this claim is wholly without
merit and lacks any demonstrable basis.

I don't expect any counter proof that will be expressed with the same
professional level of specification offered here, nor performable
within the 3 minutes it took me to do this (barring the time to type
this all out).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:


The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

[Bill[_4_]]

On Jan 7, 4:21*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 9:31*pm, Bill wrote:

On Jan 7, 2:13*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

Art,

I'm sure your compact antennas do perform better than
others contained within similar physical dimensions.

Mike G0ULI

WHAT antennas would those be?

He clearly stated fractional and loaded antennas. What is so hard to
read what he stated?

It is impossible to read what you have stated. Has anyone seen your
antennas, you old fraud?