[Art Unwin]

On Jan 9, 1:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 9, 11:27*am, Dave wrote:

On Jan 9, 4:19*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

snip handwaving

when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than
Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil.

O.K look at things another way where the given theory interlocks with
even more branches of accepted science.

When you apply Maxwells equations to an array it can only supply
radiation from forces that are supplied. If all is not supplied ie the
array is not in equilibrium then it accounts for only what is
applicable.
A yagi is not in equilibrium so Maxwell can only supply radiation
evident by other laws or another arrangement that the programmer has
provided, which will be in the order of something less than 100%
If the result is 100% accountability translated into 100% efficiency
then the array provided conformed to a Maxwell arrangement in
equilibrium
OR the programmer provided methods for the program to reorganised the
array to conform with Maxwells equations which requires equilibrium.
Thus Maxwell declares the difference between equilibrium
and non equilibrium. The final test in terms of physics and astromoney
and the laws of Newton is that the vectors of radiation must be equal
to opposing vectors such that equilibrium is retained. Maxwell does
this by supplying two vectors for radiation which is balanced by
gravity and the rotation of the Earth which are accepted external
influencies
with reference to the Solar system. These same two vectors are
reflected thru a series of interchanges per Newtons law where it
inevitably it finishes up with the big bang where equilibrium is
broken by the introduction of the same two vectors, one straight and
one with spin content which is axial or otherwise ala, helical in
content.
It is the same two vectors which all the Universe is compared to as a
datum level that portrays the difference between equilibrium and the
breakage of equilibrium. This can be stated because without breakage
or change from equilibrium movement cannot occur and the solar *system
cannot exist. This was visualised by Einstein with out the success of
deducing the initial vectors such that he turned to the science of
Relativity in the hope they would then be exposed before he went to
his death.
Regards
Art

Another aproach to radiation
Using a common dipole we have two variables,length and cross sectional
area.
Mathematically we can reduce length to a minimum thickness where by
the crosd sectional area must increase a given amount to retain
equilibrium. This clearly shows that the provider or receiver of
communication can be in the form of a flat plate conductor or same
that is perforated.
Remember that at no time have I invoked Gausss field when made dynamic
which both you and I agree to and others do not. Which forces
interlocking of physics proof from other accepted physical facts.
proof of interlocking as I have supplied.
Art

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 9, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

more handwaving snipped
sorry art, no snappy comebacks this time, your vague pointless
handwaving is not proving anything. maxwell's equations work just
fine as published and as implemented in various modeling programs.
you have shown nothing other than a good imagination in all the posts
i have seen, maybe you should take up science fiction writing
instead. if you aren't into writing i would particularly recommend
you study the works of James Blish in his Cities in Flight series of
novels, maybe you could make the spindizzy really work.

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 9, 1:50*pm, Dave wrote:
On Jan 9, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

more handwaving snipped
sorry art, no snappy comebacks this time, your vague pointless
handwaving is not proving anything. *maxwell's equations work just
fine as published and as implemented in various modeling programs.
you have shown nothing other than a good imagination in all the posts
i have seen, maybe you should take up science fiction writing
instead. *if you aren't into writing i would particularly recommend
you study the works of James Blish in his Cities in Flight series of
novels, maybe you could make the spindizzy really work.

Yes, I agree we are at the end, with you only agreeing with the
admissability of making the Gaussian field dynamic which equates
mathematically to Maxwell. At least that shows a progression from the
particle domain. With hands being tied with respect to that approach
and the other approaches offered are not accepted by you for
unspecified reasons. Hey, we gave it a shot with respect to physics
and did not have to substitute insults under the umbrella of free
speech If you hear me on the air I will be using the prescribed
radiator
and if we do not make contact then you can rest more easily with your
own thinking. I had hoped that the transition from ham radio to CB had
not already occured in the hope that some of the original amateurs
were still alive who were well versed in antennas and physics but we
are now in another eara. Both Europe and Japan were showing big
signals yesterday so things are looking up.
Regards
Art

[Mike Kaliski]

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 11:33 am, Dave wrote:
On Jan 9, 5:27 pm, Dave wrote:

On Jan 9, 4:19 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

snip handwaving

when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than
Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil.

p.s. talking energy when trying to figure out what happens with waves
is counterproductive. energy is an integration of power, power is a
function of current or voltage and impedance, or field strength and
impedance of the medium... when you go from fields or current/voltage
to power you lose phase information that is important. integrating it
into energy loses even the phase and time information. it is always
best to describe waves by using one field or the other, which one is
up to the student since they are always related by the impedance of
the medium... the same goes for currents or voltages on conductors,
pick one and stick with it, you can always calculate the other when
needed.

You stated that nobody knows how waves work so I took energy
contained as the route. I can't explain how waves work either and I
don't want to start of with an explanation how a wave works.
So the impasse appears to me that first I have to explain how waves
work instead of mass but also to continue on with the same theory and
then apply it to another theory! It was stated earlier that a mouse
trap can kill a mouse with less than 100% energy, so you require an
autopsy to show how and why and if it is really dead! You can do the
same by connecting a radio up to a mesh. You find how it can transmit
and receive such that it is NOT dead, that is the easy way.
We are now back to the prosecutor declaring one is an idiot where the
judge retorts, as another example of free speech, that the prosequtor
is a homosexual, but now requests the prosequtor to present evidence
proof or you will be arrested!
I am not guilty as I have presented a paper for my peers to agree or
disagree on the basis of science. Unfortunately my peers in science
have not yet arrived. Either way, thanks a bunch for your efforts and
sticking to physics and not free speech.
Best Regards
Art

Actually Art, I said that a mouse trap can kill a mouse with less than 100%
efficiency. It may not catch all the mice, but the mice it catches are all
dead.

Schroedinger is the guy who had a half dead, half alive cat in a sealed box,
but that's an entirely different kettle of fish!

:-)

73's

Mike G0ULI

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 9, 9:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

and the other approaches offered are not accepted by you for
unspecified reasons.

i have been very specific about why they are not acceptable, there are
no specific equations that relate to something measurable, nor have
you made any predictions of things that aren't already well described
by existing laws and theories.

[Mike Kaliski]

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 1:38 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 9, 11:27 am, Dave wrote:

On Jan 9, 4:19 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

snip handwaving

when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than
Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil.

O.K look at things another way where the given theory interlocks with
even more branches of accepted science.

When you apply Maxwells equations to an array it can only supply
radiation from forces that are supplied. If all is not supplied ie the
array is not in equilibrium then it accounts for only what is
applicable.
A yagi is not in equilibrium so Maxwell can only supply radiation
evident by other laws or another arrangement that the programmer has
provided, which will be in the order of something less than 100%
If the result is 100% accountability translated into 100% efficiency
then the array provided conformed to a Maxwell arrangement in
equilibrium
OR the programmer provided methods for the program to reorganised the
array to conform with Maxwells equations which requires equilibrium.
Thus Maxwell declares the difference between equilibrium
and non equilibrium. The final test in terms of physics and astromoney
and the laws of Newton is that the vectors of radiation must be equal
to opposing vectors such that equilibrium is retained. Maxwell does
this by supplying two vectors for radiation which is balanced by
gravity and the rotation of the Earth which are accepted external
influencies
with reference to the Solar system. These same two vectors are
reflected thru a series of interchanges per Newtons law where it
inevitably it finishes up with the big bang where equilibrium is
broken by the introduction of the same two vectors, one straight and
one with spin content which is axial or otherwise ala, helical in
content.
It is the same two vectors which all the Universe is compared to as a
datum level that portrays the difference between equilibrium and the
breakage of equilibrium. This can be stated because without breakage
or change from equilibrium movement cannot occur and the solar system
cannot exist. This was visualised by Einstein with out the success of
deducing the initial vectors such that he turned to the science of
Relativity in the hope they would then be exposed before he went to
his death.
Regards
Art

Another aproach to radiation
Using a common dipole we have two variables,length and cross sectional
area.
Mathematically we can reduce length to a minimum thickness where by
the crosd sectional area must increase a given amount to retain
equilibrium. This clearly shows that the provider or receiver of
communication can be in the form of a flat plate conductor or same
that is perforated.
Remember that at no time have I invoked Gausss field when made dynamic
which both you and I agree to and others do not. Which forces
interlocking of physics proof from other accepted physical facts.
proof of interlocking as I have supplied.
Art

Hi Art,

If I read this correctly you are saying that as a dipole antenna is reduced
in length relative to a given frequency, it must be increased in thickness
until a point is reached where you are left with two closely spaced parallel
plates which are the equivalent of the dipole.

The plates need not be solid, so a perforated or mesh surface will do. You
have mentioned how to form mesh structures a few times, so I assume that
this is what you are using.

Fat dipoles are inherently broadband, so such an antenna will be compact,
efficient, broadband and cheap if constructed from mesh.

Sounds like a reasonable experiment, but I don't think it needs any new
maths to describe how it works. The existing theories already back you up.

Cheers

Mike G0ULI

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 9, 3:53*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Jan 9, 1:38 pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jan 9, 11:27 am, Dave wrote:

On Jan 9, 4:19 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

snip handwaving

when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than
Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil.

O.K look at things another way where the given theory interlocks with
even more branches of accepted science.

When you apply Maxwells equations to an array it can only supply
radiation from forces that are supplied. If all is not supplied ie the
array is not in equilibrium then it accounts for only what is
applicable.
A yagi is not in equilibrium so Maxwell can only supply radiation
evident by other laws or another arrangement that the programmer has
provided, which will be in the order of something less than 100%
If the result is 100% accountability translated into 100% efficiency
then the array provided conformed to a Maxwell arrangement in
equilibrium
OR the programmer provided methods for the program to reorganised the
array to conform with Maxwells equations which requires equilibrium.
Thus Maxwell declares the difference between equilibrium
and non equilibrium. The final test in terms of physics and astromoney
and the laws of Newton is that the vectors of radiation must be equal
to opposing vectors such that equilibrium is retained. Maxwell does
this by supplying two vectors for radiation which is balanced by
gravity and the rotation of the Earth which are accepted external
influencies
with reference to the Solar system. These same two vectors are
reflected thru a series of interchanges per Newtons law where it
inevitably it finishes up with the big bang where equilibrium is
broken by the introduction of the same two vectors, one straight and
one with spin content which is axial or otherwise ala, helical in
content.
It is the same two vectors which all the Universe is compared to as a
datum level that portrays the difference between equilibrium and the
breakage of equilibrium. This can be stated because without breakage
or change from equilibrium movement cannot occur and the solar system
cannot exist. This was visualised by Einstein with out the success of
deducing the initial vectors such that he turned to the science of
Relativity in the hope they would then be exposed before he went to
his death.
Regards
Art

Another aproach to radiation
Using a common dipole we have two variables,length and cross sectional
area.
Mathematically we can reduce length to a minimum thickness where by
the crosd sectional area must increase a given amount to retain
equilibrium. This clearly shows that the provider or receiver of
communication can be in the form of a flat plate conductor or same
that is perforated.
Remember that at no time have I invoked Gausss field when made dynamic
which both you and I agree to and others do not. Which forces
interlocking of physics proof from other accepted physical facts.
proof of interlocking as I have supplied.
Art

Hi Art,

If I read this correctly you are saying that as a dipole antenna is reduced
in length relative to a given frequency, it must be increased in thickness
until a point is reached where you are left with two closely spaced parallel
plates which are the equivalent of the dipole.

Well actually I was infering that for minimum thicness of the plate
",area" must be increased. However if I had thought a bit more ,your
explanation of two close spaced plates is a better description since
there are two entities there as with a water chamber separated by a
flexible gasket. Thus we have an application where a water analogy can
be used for energy transfer ie. Volume can change from one side to the
other by the deflection of the membrane yet the two entities still
stay separate. Neat.






The plates need not be solid, so a perforated or mesh surface will do. You
have mentioned how to form mesh structures a few times, so I assume that
this is what you are using.

Yes that sums it up.


Fat dipoles are inherently broadband, so such an antenna will be compact,
efficient, broadband and cheap if constructed from mesh.

Yes,I was illustrating the use of mathematics to show that two
entities were actually the same because mathematics appeared to be the
choice of proof. Nothing more.


Sounds like a reasonable experiment, but I don't think it needs any new
maths to describe how it works. The existing theories already back you up..
I fully understand that, but when the group denied existing physics in
favor of requesting a different proof perhaps a new technology then I
was lost for words. So when DR Davis of MIT came along and confirmed
what I stated the group attacked him also. We never got beyond the
point of legality of adding a time varient to Gauss's law such that
Maxwells equations could be applied. Unfortunately this also presented
the presence of particles albiet static particles so interpretations
of the double split experiment got expanded beyond the spectrum of
light of which there is no proof. Thus an opening for
insults without explanation required A boon to those uneducated in the
field
Art




Cheers

Mike G0ULI

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 9, 3:46*pm, Dave wrote:
On Jan 9, 9:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

and the other approaches offered are not accepted by you for
unspecified reasons.

i have been very specific about why they are not acceptable, there are
no specific equations that relate to something measurable, nor have
you made any predictions of things that aren't already well described
by existing laws and theories.

David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal
accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a
basis for the application of Maxwells equations. Why is this? Because
equilibrium is determined by a period. If each half wave that
constituted a period then one is saying that the half wave resonant
point is half way between the beginning and the end of a cycle. There
is a resonant point but that same point is NOT repeatable thus one
must refer to the "period point" for equilibrium.
Physics does not squable with this assertion,amature radio does by
ignoring equilibrium requirement.
Moving on with this revealment we can then say that a radiator can be
any shape ,size or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium when
Maxwell can be applied for accountability for all forces.
Thus a radiator can be deformed ,reshaped or condensed and still be
applicable to Maxwells laws as long as equilibrium is held to.
Imediately we can therefore deduce that lumped loads if provided must
be cancelled to retain equilibrium. Thus the application of
equilibrium as required in physics provide a path for the design of
compact radiators where all forces are accounted for as well as
maximum radiation.
To ask for mathematical proof of the requirement of equilibrium or
balance which is the root or datum line for all physics is patently
absurd and immediatly declares all prior physics laws supplied by the
masters as void and redundant as all are based on equilibrium.
The real problem here is that when Maxwell by the use of mathematical
rules with his equations showed that mathematics easily
supplanted past investigation by observation that all physicsts were
lead to believe that mathematics over rule observation. Thus we now
may use mathematical deductions such as probability to substitute for
observation knowing full well that a punter at the race course will
lose all by continuous betting on favorites and it doesn't happen that
way in real life. If my memory is correct "probability" was the path
taken in the double slit experiment in the face of tha absence of a
true mathematical or observed factor . Since the results matched
consensus among physicists the subject was considered "solved" never
to be questioned again. And worse, expanded beyond the limits applied
in the test. Imaginary answers provided! Don't worry, since
mathematics rules all so imaginary can be seen as factual. Same goes
for Newtons laws where he stated that every action has an equal and
opposite reaction where present day students now add "diametrically"
to further describe "opposite" which is not the intent of Newton
initial determination. Now we have CERN spending billions on
accellerating particles instead of the prior determined waves. O my!
Art

[Richard Clark]

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:03:29 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

Consider the current in that capacitor's plates which would run radial
from the feed to their edges. When the former dipole was radiating,
those currents were in-phase and they contributed to radiation. In
this novel degenerate design, they both have moved to the opposite
polarization and are anti-phase where their fields cancel.

I can well imagine that the bright inventor, the holder of innumerable
patents validating a new physics, could counter this problem of
anti-phase cancellation.

The two currents are adjacent because of their feed point design.
"Change the feedpoint design! (Remarkable insight solves the
problem.)"

How?

"Move the feedline every so slightly away (so slight that not even
Richard could complain)."

Richard doesn't complain ;-)

"Now, take a wire and connect it to the extreme edge of one plate and
connect it to one of the two feed wires. Then take a second wire, and
connect it to the extreme, BUT OPPOSITE, edge of the second plate."

Richard mildly points out that this solves the problem out to the
edges of each plate and restores radiation, but then the current turns
back towards the feedpoint along either plate that is a massive short
and cancels the new wire out. :-O

The cracker-jack holder of patents then would retort: "Remove the
plates and that problem is gone!"

..... and we are back to the conventional dipole which proves this 2nd
order degenerate design IS more compact.

****** tear on dotted line and return ****************

Have we gotten any practical contra-example to the simple dipole being
100% efficient? You know, a real design that describes frequency,
length, and width of wire? [I realize this may be a tough obstacle to
surmount. Dimensions are sometimes novel concepts in these threads
that challenge the most cerebral of patent holders. In fact, I can
accurate forecast without aid of modeling that any response from Art
to this posting will focus on parenthetical comments rather than
science.]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

[[email protected]]

Art Unwin wrote:

Well actually I was infering that for minimum thicness of the plate
",area" must be increased. However if I had thought a bit more ,your
explanation of two close spaced plates is a better description since
there are two entities there as with a water chamber separated by a
flexible gasket. Thus we have an application where a water analogy can
be used for energy transfer ie. Volume can change from one side to the
other by the deflection of the membrane yet the two entities still
stay separate. Neat.

Since water is for all practical purposes incompressible, you can't
change the volume of water that way, just the shape of the volume.

More psuedo-science babble.

snip remaining babble


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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