Genius
Bill
"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."
Does the author not understand the difference between fusion and
combustion? Why would anyone pay attention to such an ignoramus when
he writes about antenna theory?
Art Unwin
> fromhttp://unwinantennas.com/:
By all means re write it according to your own teachings. I paid for
the option of what I wrote and I assume you can do the same.
Maybe your efforts will be printed in many books as a cannon, tho
critiscism alone rarely is !
Bill
> On Nov 11, 10:41 am, Bill <k4...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
> > fromhttp://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."
>
> > Does the author not understand the difference between fusion and
> > combustion? Why would anyone pay attention to such an ignoramus when
> > he writes about antenna theory?
>
> By all means re write it according to your own teachings
It is too hopeless to be rewritten.
>I paid for the option of what I wrote and I assume you can >do the same.
You should have paid for an editor. I would not pay to display myself
as a great ass on the internet.
> Maybe your efforts will be printed in many books as a
> cannon, tho critiscism alone rarely is !
You are illiterate AND ignorant. Can't you even use a dictionary?
Art Unwin
It is better to ask for forgiveness than requesting permission
AndyS
Andy comments;
It looks like satire to me. I got a chuckle out of it.... But you
can
verify this by going to the sun and lchecking it out for yourself....
It'll be OK
if you go at night when it's a lot cooler.
Andy W4OAH
Bill
>
> Andy comments;
>
> It looks like satire to me. I got a chuckle out of it.... But you
> can
> verify this by going to the sun and lchecking it out for yourself....
> It'll be OK
> if you go at night when it's a lot cooler.
>
> Andy W4OAH
Seriously, you can see great pictures of the solar surface with
DX ToolBox:
christofire
"Bill" <k4...@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:01414592-918d-464e...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 3:12 pm, Art Unwin <arthurun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is better to ask for forgiveness than requesting permission-
>
http://unwinantennas.com/ appears to be gone. That is a good
start :-)
* No, it's back!
Chris
JIMMIE
> "Bill" <k4...@arrl.net> wrote in message
>
> news:01414592-918d-464e...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 3:12 pm, Art Unwin <arthurun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is better to ask for forgiveness than requesting permission-
>
> start :-)
>
> * No, it's back!
>
> Chris
Its true the sun runs on coal, English coal no doubt of the finest
grade.
Jimmie
Dave
> On Nov 14, 9:12 pm, "christofire" <christof...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bill" <k4...@arrl.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:01414592-918d-464e...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 11, 3:12 pm, Art Unwin <arthurun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It is better to ask for forgiveness than requesting permission-
>
> > start :-)
>
> > * No, it's back!
>
> > Chris
>
> Its true the sun runs on coal, English coal no doubt of the finest
> grade.
>
> Jimmie
that is either poorly written satire, or a result of todays education
system... either way its 99.9% wrong... he did get the first 5 words
correct, and that English was not Einsteins native language. His
citing of Gauss's law in one of the patent claims is rather unique, as
is the inclusion of the weak force in the other... obviously a result
of too many google snippets and not enough in depth study.
Art Unwin
> On Nov 15, 3:10 am, JIMMIE <JIMMIEDEE...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 9:12 pm, "christofire" <christof...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Bill" <k4...@arrl.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:01414592-918d-464e...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Nov 11, 3:12 pm, Art Unwin <arthurun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It is better to ask for forgiveness than requesting permission-
>
> > > start :-)
>
> > > * No, it's back!
>
> > > Chris
>
> > Its true the sun runs on coal, English coal no doubt of the finest
> > grade.
>
> > Jimmie
>
> that is either poorly written satire, or a result of todays education
> system... either way its 99.9% wrong... he did get the first 5 words
> correct, and that English was not Einsteins native language. His
> citing of Gauss's law in one of the patent claims is rather unique, as
> is the inclusion of the weak force in the other... obviously a result
> of too many google snippets and not enough in depth study.
This is only true if one demands total adherence to the teachings of
the books.
Many are just theories that have been expanded upon via the use of
constants to account for the unknown and often most collapse over time
due to misinterpretation by humans.
In the case of making the static situation into a dynamic system the
mathematics are the duplication of Maxwell's laws for radiation. This
is why the use of full wave radiators satisfy equilibrium laws such
that 100% efficiencies are obtained that satisfy the teachings of
other sciences that particles and not waves are the carriers of
radiation.
Art Unwin
The term "soot" defines the presence of particles that still contain
energy when dispelled from a chemical exchange process. In the case of
escape from the Sun's internal processes it must be recognized that
ejected particles still contain energy in nuclear form as well as
vector forces applied by the boundary equilibrium breaking form of a
leverage action.
The mechanics of what happens within the Sun's boundary is not as
important as the recognition of the equilibrium breaking vectors when
reviewing what I see as the initial carrier of radiation in the form
of an "accelerated charge". True, my spelling is not in accordance
with the rules of the english language but languages used other than
english
cannot be automatically dismissed as drivel unless correctly
translated as such.
Dave
> On Nov 15, 6:27 am, Dave <k1...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 3:10 am, JIMMIE <JIMMIEDEE...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 9:12 pm, "christofire" <christof...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Bill" <k4...@arrl.net> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:01414592-918d-464e...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Nov 11, 3:12 pm, Art Unwin <arthurun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It is better to ask for forgiveness than requesting permission-
>
> > > > start :-)
>
> > > > * No, it's back!
>
> > > > Chris
>
> > > Its true the sun runs on coal, English coal no doubt of the finest
> > > grade.
>
> > > Jimmie
>
> > that is either poorly written satire, or a result of todays education
> > system... either way its 99.9% wrong... he did get the first 5 words
> > correct, and that English was not Einsteins native language. His
> > citing of Gauss's law in one of the patent claims is rather unique, as
> > is the inclusion of the weak force in the other... obviously a result
> > of too many google snippets and not enough in depth study.
>
> This is only true if one demands total adherence to the teachings of
> the books.
> Many are just theories that have been expanded upon via the use of
> constants to account for the unknown and often most collapse over time
> due to misinterpretation by humans.
> In the case of making the static situation into a dynamic system the
> mathematics are the duplication of Maxwell's laws for radiation. This
> is why the use of full wave radiators satisfy equilibrium laws such
> that 100% efficiencies are obtained that satisfy the teachings of
> other sciences that particles and not waves are the carriers of
>
> - Show quoted text -
i don't demand adherence to the books, but since the books i learned
from haven't been proven false in the last 30 years i am inclined to
keep believing them. particles or waves depend on your preference,
however when computing from currents in conductors it is easiest to
use waves, when working at higher energies and when studying electron
or nuclear interactions it is often easier to use particles. i don't
see how using full waves helps since 1/2 wave antennas are self
resonant, and there is no equilibrium in radiating systems... maybe if
you consider perfectly conducting and lossless closed systems like
waveguides or coax stubs, but once you add a radiating element energy
must flow out of the system so there can't be equilibrium.
Art Unwin
1/2 waves are not resonant at a constant and repeatable length. The
existance of particles has been proven in other sciences. It is just
in Classical physics where the presence of particle has not been
proved which leaves those that are stubborn to take the approach that
waves can change into particles and vica versa. As for equilibrium,
according to Hawkings it only in existence just PRIOR to the loss of
equilibrium seen as the BIG BANG. It has been billions of years since
that happened such that all surfaces on Earth that are diamagnetic are
covered by particles at rest.( Without assimilation to other mass)
With this condition in existence particles come to a screeching halt
at the magnetic field generated in arbitrary form around the earth
where added extra particles that arrive combine linearly into magnetic
lines. If a particle is accelerated outside our boundary a particle
can enter the equivalent pseudo Faraday shield via the length of
opening between the magnetic lines that allows entrance of a particle
in equilibrium. It is the attraction of such particles between the
Earth's surface and its magnetic field that creates the weather where
updrafts lifts moisture which is diamagnetic upon which the particles
reside until an imbalance occurs with change in temperature such that
particles have nowhere to go except back to Earth when the outer
magnetic field rises to saturation. Remember, the term "waves" is an
adjective whereas a "particle" is a noun and thus has substance or
contains matter. Thus it is ridiculous with respect to physics where
one disappline explains the particle as the carrier of communication
is countered by those who "know" where that the only explanation that
can be provided for the disparity is that they are both one and the
same vis interchangability!
such as particles
Dave
>
> - Show quoted text -
waves are nouns in my books. and a 1/2 wave dipole is perfectly
repeatable when i measure it. maybe you need a new library, or a new
bar, i want some of whatever you are drinking.
Art Unwin
No, that is a cop out! A half wave length is ever changing. Because
you cannot measure the differences in the lengths does not mean that
you have consistency. You are confusing
infinity with absolute which one tends to regard as the same, to
justify the use of a mathematical step by mathematicians which defies
the position of equilibrium.
The same goes for a yagi where every element re radiates such there is
never enough elements to account for total radiation in beam form.
JIMMIE
>
> - Show quoted text -
I remember meeting some college kids that were messing around with
peyote. I dont think they were this far out.
That includes the one that could only say " Like wow man".
Jimmie
Jimmie
Dave
>
> - Show quoted text -
agreed, after that last reply it seems like he is farther out than i
thought. time to wait till he sobers up a bit, if that ever happens.
nm...@wt.net
> True, my spelling is not in accordance
> with the rules of the english language but languages used other than
> english
> cannot be automatically dismissed as drivel unless correctly
> translated as such.
My cat had mittens, but she lost one while playing with the
possum, who proceeded to roll over and play dead in all
the excitement. :/
Art Unwin
David, your cop out is very understandable in any debate. One who has
trust in himself is willing to agree that both sides can disagree
until more information is achieved so that discussion or debate can
proceed. On the other hand those that are programed to rely on the
teachings of others as with a priest develops anger towards those
who apparently is treating his faith with disdain, by showing anger
towards those whose debate has not come to an end which does occurs
with those who deal only on faith. So yes it is not unusual for debate
to end with barbs thrown at the other debater. In your case you
entered the debate with acceptance that only a program that dealt with
full wave radiators can achieve 100% accountability of all forces.This
change in direction from faith has led you into the position of
providing proof that a half wave radiator can achieve 100% efficiency
ONLY by finding a way where overshoot is included , indeed a heavy
task that extends beyond faith.
Cheers
Art
Bill
>
> Its true the sun runs on coal, English coal no doubt of the finest
> grade.
>
> Jimmie
"The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise."
tom
"And it's turtles all the way down."
tom
K0TAR
Bill
>
> The term "soot" defines the presence of particles that still
> contain energy when dispelled from a chemical exchange >process. In
the case of escape from the Sun's internal >processes it must be
recognized that ejected particles still >contain energy in nuclear
form as well as vector forces >applied by the boundary equilibrium
breaking form of a
> leverage action.
Soot refers to carbon particles resulting from the incomplete
combustion of a hydrocarbon. ... or particulate matter, whose size is
measured in microns. You are confusing the term with sub-atomic
particles.
You are like Humpty Dumpty in 'Alice in Wonderland'.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it
means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
Art Unwin
So here you are again with nothing of value other than insults.
You mentioned that credible evidence has been presented( obviously not
you)
that provides credible evidence supplied that refutes my position. Why
not push that point over and over again where the credible evidence
becomes readily accepted by those skilled in the art? The church once
declared that the World is flat and those who do not follow the
teachings will be excommunicated. Eventually scientific knoweledge
increased as the Century past such that teaching became discreditedand
the church had to recant to allow the teachings of faith by the
servants of the church could continue. Come to think of it I bet the
findings of Steven Best has already made it in the latest books for
assimilation by those now entering college regardles of what the
naysayers promote by refuting change to all that every thing is now
is known about the science of antennas. These people eventually die
thus leaving the education field to review the sciences of old and
update them where necessary so they may be duplicated by plagurizers
that are natural followers.
tom
> On Nov 15, 8:42 pm, tom <news4...@taring.org> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>>> Its true the sun runs on coal, English coal no doubt of the finest
>>>> grade.
>>>> Jimmie
>>> "The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
>>> tortoise."
>> "And it's turtles all the way down."
>>
>> tom
>> K0TAR
>
> So here you are again with nothing of value other than insults.
> You mentioned that credible evidence has been presented
I wasn't even responding to you. You really are losing it.
And where in my very short statement of ""And it's turtles all the way
down"" did you see the words "credible evidence"?
You need to see your brain specialist again. More meds are indicated
loony boy.
tom
K0TAR
Art Unwin
And here you are again. It is getting hard to communicate with you.
Bill
That's what the old lady said.
Michael Coslo
She's right you know!
- 73 de Mike N3LI -