On Jun 6, 2:13*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 6, 6:26*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 5, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:

On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. *It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

oh please put an end to it... i will tell you outright that the
program deviates from maxwell's equations! *at very small or very
large extremes it deviates quite a lot! *and that is of course why all
your results that you let it optimize too far are garbage, you are not
conforming with maxwell.

no facts. just opinion

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:13:10 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT wrote:

your results that you let it optimize too far are garbage

Models are doomed to succeed.

There should be a cautionary label applied to them all:
"Use only with the supervision of a curious child."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Jun 6, 7:18*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 6, 2:13*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Jun 6, 6:26*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jun 5, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:

On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. *It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

oh please put an end to it... i will tell you outright that the
program deviates from maxwell's equations! *at very small or very
large extremes it deviates quite a lot! *and that is of course why all
your results that you let it optimize too far are garbage, you are not
conforming with maxwell.

no facts. just opinion

yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

On 6/6/2010 1:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:34 pm, wrote:
On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

You need to get a grip. All I did was point out that you may be
exceeding the limits of the program you use.

Take your meds.

tom
K0TAR

On 6/6/2010 1:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

And people have pointed out gaping holes (monstrously large errors) in
the nonsense you proclaim on a daily basis. You just refuse to
acknowledge it.

Time for the rubber room again for a while.

tom
K0TAR

On Jun 6, 3:59*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 6, 7:18*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 6, 2:13*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Jun 6, 6:26*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jun 5, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:

On 6/5/2010 10:27 PM, tom wrote:

The maximum wire diameters of your model seem to be impractical for use
with Mininec where it is not advisable to go beyond .001 wavelengths
from what I'm able to determine. Based on that assumption I get a
maximum usable wire gauge for 685MHz of 25, and for 1200MHz 30. At 3000
it's a number not even on the AWG table I have -38. So to model this
antenna at 3000MHz you should use 38 AWG or smaller wire for any chance
of accurate results.

The guage was not meant to be -38, I missed the spacebar. *It should
have read

"not even on the AWG table I have - 38."

tom
K0TAR

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

oh please put an end to it... i will tell you outright that the
program deviates from maxwell's equations! *at very small or very
large extremes it deviates quite a lot! *and that is of course why all
your results that you let it optimize too far are garbage, you are not
conforming with maxwell.

no facts. just opinion

yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. *And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. * so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

On 6/6/2010 8:27 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 6, 3:59 pm, wrote:
yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

Yup, meds.

On Jun 7, 2:06*am, tom wrote:
On 6/6/2010 8:27 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 6, 3:59 pm, *wrote:
yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. *And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. * so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

Yup, meds.

STRONG meds!

On 6/7/2010 4:27 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 7, 2:06 am, wrote:
On 6/6/2010 8:27 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 6, 3:59 pm, wrote:
yes, that is my opinion as a professional software developer who has
written simulation programs that model lightning on high voltage power
lines, on towers, and in ground conductors. And also as a user of AO
from many years ago... that program is prone to optimizing into
unrealizable and obviously incorrect results, often first seen as
rapid changes in currents and gain values. so if you really want to
continue, have fun, we all get a good laugh out of your naivety and
attempts to explain it with your own version of physics.

I have no problem with your view point and it is something I am
concerned about. Since I have followed this path however, every thing
is meshing
and I am reporting it as I do not fear failure. But to my mind I have
not hit anything to cause me to give up. On top of that nobody has
raised any particular points of discussion either. Remember it took me
years to convince all that extending Gauss
was OK and it provided arrays where all elements were resonant each of
which can be fed. So I was right there and everybody else was in
error, relying on books only and not there own education.
Now I am spreading my wings based on what the former has shown and
will re evaluate again when done. At each time I will continue to
share results
even if it finally shows some errors But I certainly will not stop
because of intuitions from the group which up to now has been proved
wrong. Nothing wrong with following the teachings of the books as
followers but I am attempting to be a leader in finding truths about
radiation. So far I have proved the presence of particles, realised
equilibrium in every way and now I appear to be proving that skin
depth is not a constant. A lot of work to do but as an engineer I knew
it would take a while and on top of that I supplied it to a academic
to break it down
as one always should get an independent evaluation. So far every thing
that Einstein predicted has shown up in my workings such that if he
had seen it there would have been no need for alternate physics
proposals, not that they were without success. The final point is that
it is accepted that the machinations of radiation have not yet been
proven and so far following thru with classical physics has provided
with interesting view points that oppose the present teachings. So I
am a fool to place my engineering experience in search of the truth
where others may be happy as things are.
So I am different from the rest and what is so bad about that? It is
for the group to show that I am inadequate from my aproach and to this
point all
that has been presented has been proven false and I still prevail. I
yearn for closure which could come from those really interested in the
outcome. But at the same time in their absence I will carry on.
Future info will be on the new thread since this one is now dead and
placed in the archives.
Regards
Art

Yup, meds.

STRONG meds!

And all these miraculous claims without a shred of evidence or formulas
one can check.

And yet he prevails.