Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

History is riddled with examples of footshot after footshot after
footshot where corporates have been too stupid to know a good
idea when they see one and where they ignore a good idea because
it would cripple the prospects for their current offers in the market etc.

Do you know the rough probability that, the next time
you fly somewhere on a jet plane, that it will crash?

Yep, too small to worry about.

I dont hide under the bed whenever one passes over either.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the
solver’s expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,”
often by applying specialized knowledge or instruments
developed for another purpose.

Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.

Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthrus
of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, working out
what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated circuit,
or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.

We need the backgrounds of them inventors.

We've got that. Your claim is just mindlessly silly.

 

[Wim Lewis]

In article <haurl5-jtg.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:

In sci.physics kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
You have never heard of the inverse square law obviously. High
frequencies are line of site only and can go long distances
because you pump out more power. You need to compare apples with
apples.

The inverse square law applies to isotropic radiators. No real world
RF antenna is an isotropic radiator.

The inverse square law applies to anisotropic radiators, too.


--
Wim Lewis <wiml@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1

 

In sci.physics Wim Lewis <wiml@hhhh.org> wrote:

In article <haurl5-jtg.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
In sci.physics kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
You have never heard of the inverse square law obviously. High
frequencies are line of site only and can go long distances
because you pump out more power. You need to compare apples with
apples.

The inverse square law applies to isotropic radiators. No real world
RF antenna is an isotropic radiator.

The inverse square law applies to anisotropic radiators, too.

So you are saying a perfectly collimated beam follows the inverse
square law?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:25?am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

The inverse square law applies to isotropic radiators. No real world
RF antenna is an isotropic radiator.
The inverse square law applies to anisotropic radiators, too.

So you are saying a perfectly collimated beam follows the inverse
square law?

Yes, he is, Jim! And the reason for that is because a "perfectly
collimated" beam simply does not exist!

It certainly does mathematically.

Even in the case of a single mode TEM 00 Gausian beam laser, the
radiation spreads out in the far field. One can arrange things so
that the narrow "waist" of the output beam occurs at a distance from
the laser, and that beam SEEMS to not follow the inverse square
relationship, but the fact is as I pointed out above, the seeming
failure is due to being in what is essential the "near field" of the
beam. At a great enough distance the beam expands.

If you want to talk practical, it is practical to generate a beam
that over the distances of interest is collimated well enough that
the inverse square law does not strictly apply.

Most real microwave links are that way.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

InnoCentive found that "the further the problem was from
the solver's expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,"
often by applying specialized knowledge or instruments
developed for another purpose.

Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.

It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species.
There comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.

The number of advances probably increases as the
fields become more similar, at least to a point. The
only problem is that the advances aren't as great.

Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.

The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
"distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is one
"ID", to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of
breakthroughs v ID etc.

There's one unifying discipline that has absolutely pervaded all the sciences,

Nope, most obviously with the biological sciences early on, before electronics was even invented.

Ditto in spades with the physical sciences too.

all of technology,

Wrong again, most obviously with the industrial revolution and
military technology before electronics was even invented.

and nearly all the arts:

Wrong in spades before electronics was even invented.

electronics.

Fraid not.

I said "has pervaded." Having trouble with tenses? Or history?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Pity electronics doesnt qualify as a 'unifying discipline' in that sense either.

It's rare that any modern physical experiment isn't instrumented with
electronics, and its data analyzed and published using computers.

Thats as silly as claiming that the printing press
is a 'unifying discipline' in all those fields. Fraid not.

Electronics has revolutionized biology (gene sequencing, molecular analysis)
and physics (making quantum mechanics measurable, detecting particles
and quanta) and chemistry and practically any discipline you can name.

Thats as silly as claiming that chemistry is a 'unifying discipline' in all those fields. Fraid not.

So to do any science or engineering, especially inter-discipline stuff, it's a
huge advantage to be good at electronics, as most really good scientists are.

That last is just plain wrong. Very few of them are.

Something as simple as Bret's crossover heat exchanger
is going to need some good measurement and control
electronics to keep it at its optimum point, whatever that is.

And fuck all plant breeding does.

Several delts-p's, lots of temperatures, maybe the power input to the pumps.

Dont get much of that with painting pictures.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill wrote

Everyone's seen that stuff 8 billion times.

Are you trying to bore everyone to death or what?

OK, show us something interesting that you've done.

I'm constantly posting ideas, especially in the summer.

Ideas are wonderful; the more the better. But they have to be
sifted by reality, lest they just be a heap of noise. And occasionally
turned into real stuff to add a little feedback to the process.

It's rewarding to have an idea, make it actually work, and sell
it to people who appreciate it. Call it insecurity, but seeing the
ideas out there working, for serious people, is awfully validating.

Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'

If nobody buys your stuff, that's OK with you?

Yep, if I know that its a good idea. I dont care whether anyone else agrees or not.

So you and your good idea get to die in the dark

Never said anything like that. You dont have to turn the idea
into a viable product yourself for it to be a worthwhile idea.

instead of getting proliferated for your good and that of all mankind?

Plenty of ideas are nothing like that.

That's pretty damned selfish, I'd say,

Have fun thrashing that straw man ?

since all you get if you do it that way is to suck
tour thumb and watch the world die around you.

Not if someone else chooses to use the idea.

I love it when Pratt&Whitney or McDonald Douglas or Rolls Royce or the Skunk
Works picks my stuff over somebody else's. Is that pathetically insecure?

Yep, particularly when anyone with a clue realises that corporates
can pick things for completely silly bureaucratic reasons.

Like _you've_ got a clue?

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

Tell us about your life in corporate America
and how you know that what you claim is true.

Dont need to have anything like that to see that that particular claim is true.

History is riddled with examples of footshot after footshot after footshot
where corporates have been too stupid to know a good idea when they
see one and where they ignore a good idea because it would cripple
the prospects for their current offers in the market etc.

Oh, and while you're at it, tell us about your experiences regarding
electronic circuit design and how you've made a difference, OK?

None of your business.

If you've got a clue, you know if your idea is any good.

Nope,

Yep.

unless all you care about it is for your own use.

Wrong, as always.

You dont need someone to 'validate' that.

That's not true in the private sector,

Wrong again. Most obviously when someone else uses a worthwhile idea.

where sales are validation.

Only for narrow focused fools that are pathetically insecure.

How do you feel about atheletes who want to win an Olympic Gold, or the Super Bowl?

I've always believed that all competitive sports were completely stupid.

Those who participate in them in spades.

And yet, here you are on USENET, running the race of your life
and trying to prove that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys/pathetic excuse for a troll.

reams of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys flushed where they belong

Are they pathetically insecure?

Yep, in spades.

I think not.

Thats the only thing you did manage to get right. Nothing to 'think' with.

They have the balls to believe they're the best

Or are drugged to the gills to try to cheat the system.

and aren't afraid to put it all on the line to prove it.

And you?

I piss on clowns like you from a great height.

You get to like that or lump it, child.

What could you possibly know about great heights?

You in spades.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Larkin wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

And you?

I piss on clowns like you from a great height.

You get to like that or lump it, child.

What could you possibly know about great heights?

I'm hard pressed to tell who's the least imaginative insulter. Cahill or Speed.

Both are amateurs, at technology and at insulting.

You three clowns in spades.

 

[Kris Krieger]

m II <c@in.the.hat> wrote in news:jb%kk.3639$nu6.3165@edtnps83:

z wrote:

who uses a PC to plow their field? seems inefficient.


Actually, if it weren't for the rocks, we would get more of them.

http://www.johndarwell.com/projects/s_nsfh3/index.php?i=11



mike

Heh

What's with the traffic cone BTW - was it that "done up" that way and put
there by the sea/weather...? Strange thing, that.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Bret Cahill wrote

Everyone's seen that stuff 8 billion times.

Are you trying to bore everyone to death or what?

OK, show us something interesting that you've done.

I'm constantly posting ideas, especially in the summer.

Ideas are wonderful; the more the better. But they have to be
sifted by reality, lest they just be a heap of noise. And occasionally
turned into real stuff to add a little feedback to the process.

It's rewarding to have an idea, make it actually work, and sell
it to people who appreciate it. Call it insecurity, but seeing the
ideas out there working, for serious people, is awfully validating.

Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'

If nobody buys your stuff, that's OK with you?

Yep, if I know that its a good idea. I dont care whether anyone else agrees or not.

So you and your good idea get to die in the dark

Never said anything like that. You dont have to turn the idea
into a viable product yourself for it to be a worthwhile idea.

Never said you did. What I said is that if you don't share
the idea then it's going to go to the grave with you

We werent discussing not sharing the idea, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

What was being discussed was whether an worthwhile idea needs to
be VALIDATED by producing a product that corporates choose to buy.

and you will have cheated mankind out of something worthwhile.

Nope, most obviously if someone else also comes up with that idea later.

instead of getting proliferated for your good and that of all mankind?

Plenty of ideas are nothing like that.

Got an example or two?

The idea that you can con some fools into believing that that if they blow themselves to bits in
the right circumstances that that will be an instant transport to nirvana is one obvious example.

Religion is repleat with examples of ideas that are bad for mankind.

That's pretty damned selfish, I'd say,

Have fun thrashing that straw man ?

It's not a straw man, it's the point.

Its a straw man.

Moreover, your impugning it as being a straw man _is_ a straw man.

Pathetic. You wouldnt know what a real straw man was if one bit you on your lard arse.

since all you get if you do it that way is to suck
tour thumb and watch the world die around you.

Not if someone else chooses to use the idea.

But you have to SHARE it for that to happen

And we werent discussing not SHARING it, we were discussing
whether producing a product that uses that idea and flogging it
to a corporate VALIDATES the idea. Of course it doesnt.

and you stated earlier:

"Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'"

Clearly nothing to do with SHARING.

and:

"Yep, if I know that its a good idea. I dont care whether anyone else agrees or not."

Which indicates to me that you won't share the idea

More fool you. We were clearly discussing the Brat sharing ideas.

because that'll compromise your sense of "No validation required".

Pathetic.

I love it when Pratt&Whitney or McDonald Douglas or Rolls Royce or the Skunk
Works picks my stuff over somebody else's. Is that pathetically insecure?

Yep, particularly when anyone with a clue realises that corporates
can pick things for completely silly bureaucratic reasons.

Like _you've_ got a clue?

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

But you can't.

Just did.

Tell us about your life in corporate America
and how you know that what you claim is true.

Dont need to have anything like that to see that that particular claim is true.

If you haven't "Been there, done that." then it's all hearsay.

Wrong again. Thats not what hearsay is.

History is riddled with examples of footshot after footshot after footshot
where corporates have been too stupid to know a good idea when they
see one and where they ignore a good idea because it would cripple
the prospects for their current offers in the market etc.

Hindsight's 20-20, isn't it?

Taint hindsight either. Just history.

If exploiting an idea would endager their position in
the marketplace, then they'd have to be daft to try it.

But that does mean that if they decide that they arent interested
in your idea, that that does NOT mean that the idea is invalid,
just that they are have their own agenda and that they are
irrelevant as far as whether your idea is worthwhile or not.

Besides, "Ignore" is hardly the right word since if an idea is presented
and subsequently rejected, it's still been acknowledged as an idea.

We're discussing VALIDATION of an idea. If its ignorned, it aint been VALIDATED.

Oh, and while you're at it, tell us about your experiences regarding
electronic circuit design and how you've made a difference, OK?

None of your business.

Translation: "I don't have a clue."

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

If you've got a clue, you know if your idea is any good.

Nope,

Yep.

Nope.

Yep.

There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip,

Irrelevant to whether its a worthwhile idea or not.

so even if you've got a clue there's no telling whether
the idea is good or not unless it's reduced to practice,

Wrong again. There's been many who have come up with a good idea
who arent capable of turning that into a viable product. Its still a good
idea even if they cant and someone else can turn it into a viable product.

even if that "practice" has to be a thought experiment.

Just as true even with that.

unless all you care about it is for your own use.

Wrong, as always.

Your word is hardly sacrosanct, so have you got some proof?

How odd that we havent seen a shred of that from you.

You dont need someone to 'validate' that.

That's not true in the private sector,

Wrong again. Most obviously when someone else uses a worthwhile idea.

If someone else uses it, then you must admit that it has to be shared to be brought to fruition,

We werent discussing sharing, we were discussing whether you need to turn it into a viable
product that some corporate chooses to buy to VALIDATE and idea. Of course you dont.

and the validation occurs when it's proven to work.

Yep, unlike Larkin's silly claim about turning it into a viable product
yourself and getting a corporate interested in that product.

And even with someone else choosing to use an idea, only the pathetically
insecure need that to happen to 'validate' what is a useful idea.

Its STILL a useful idea even if you're the only one that ever gets to hear about it.

where sales are validation.

Only for narrow focused fools that are pathetically insecure.

I'd say that exactly the opposite is true,

Your problem.

considering the amount of effort and risk that's involved
in fleshing out an idea and bringing it to the marketplace.

It aint just about the marketplace. Plenty of the most
important ideas dont involve the marketplace at all.

Certainly not an exercise for the faint of heart,

Its got nothing to do with hearts.

a set of which you seem to be a member.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

How do you feel about atheletes who want to win an Olympic Gold, or the Super Bowl?

I've always believed that all competitive sports were completely stupid.

Those who participate in them in spades.

And yet, here you are on USENET, running the race of your life
and trying to prove that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys/pathetic excuse for a troll.

Hardly,

Fraid so.

since you seem to be the one tugging on the hook.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

reams of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys flushed where they belong

Are they pathetically insecure?

Yep, in spades.

I think not.

Thats the only thing you did manage to get right. Nothing to 'think' with.

Well, that was marginally clever, for a change.

Unlike your juvenile shit.

They have the balls to believe they're the best

Or are drugged to the gills to try to cheat the system.

You elieve that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Nope.

and aren't afraid to put it all on the line to prove it.

And you?

I piss on clowns like you from a great height.

Sounds like a mescaline induced hallucination to me.

You'd be the expert on those.

You get to like that or lump it, child.

Geez, Mommy, are those the only chices I'm allowed to have?

Yep, and if you dont like it, do the decent thing and hang yourself or sumfin.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Larkin wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

And you?

I piss on clowns like you from a great height.

You get to like that or lump it, child.

What could you possibly know about great heights?

I'm hard pressed to tell who's the least imaginative insulter.
Cahill or Speed.

Both are amateurs, at technology and at insulting.

You three clowns in spades.

And at grammar.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof.

 

In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:55:06 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Aug 2, 11:25?am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

The inverse square law applies to isotropic radiators. No real world
RF antenna is an isotropic radiator.
The inverse square law applies to anisotropic radiators, too.

So you are saying a perfectly collimated beam follows the inverse
square law?

Yes, he is, Jim! And the reason for that is because a "perfectly
collimated" beam simply does not exist!

It certainly does mathematically.

Not for a beam made of waves.

What part of "mathematically" are you having trouble understanding?

Even in the case of a single mode TEM 00 Gausian beam laser, the
radiation spreads out in the far field. One can arrange things so
that the narrow "waist" of the output beam occurs at a distance from
the laser, and that beam SEEMS to not follow the inverse square
relationship, but the fact is as I pointed out above, the seeming
failure is due to being in what is essential the "near field" of the
beam. At a great enough distance the beam expands.

If you want to talk practical, it is practical to generate a beam
that over the distances of interest is collimated well enough that
the inverse square law does not strictly apply.

Most real microwave links are that way.

Never heard of the Radar Equation? Or done a microwave link budget?

Yes, and many, many times.

What I have never done is have occasion to use the inverse square law
in an RF link calculation.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[christofire]

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:l50fm5-5md.ln1@mail.specsol.com...

In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:55:06 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Aug 2, 11:25?am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

The inverse square law applies to isotropic radiators. No real
world
RF antenna is an isotropic radiator.
The inverse square law applies to anisotropic radiators, too.

So you are saying a perfectly collimated beam follows the inverse
square law?

Yes, he is, Jim! And the reason for that is because a "perfectly
collimated" beam simply does not exist!

It certainly does mathematically.

Not for a beam made of waves.

What part of "mathematically" are you having trouble understanding?

Even in the case of a single mode TEM 00 Gausian beam laser, the
radiation spreads out in the far field. One can arrange things so
that the narrow "waist" of the output beam occurs at a distance from
the laser, and that beam SEEMS to not follow the inverse square
relationship, but the fact is as I pointed out above, the seeming
failure is due to being in what is essential the "near field" of the
beam. At a great enough distance the beam expands.

If you want to talk practical, it is practical to generate a beam
that over the distances of interest is collimated well enough that
the inverse square law does not strictly apply.

Most real microwave links are that way.

Never heard of the Radar Equation? Or done a microwave link budget?

Yes, and many, many times.

What I have never done is have occasion to use the inverse square law
in an RF link calculation.

Jim Pennino

Your results must have been very inaccurate.

The limited aperture dimensions of metal dishes, horns, splash-plates,
helices, Yagis, etc., used for terrestrial microwave links, in terms of the
wavelength, means beam widths are generally measured in degrees for
frequencies below EHF. Furthermore, intensive frequency re-use has led to
extensive use of absorber-lined tubs shrouding dishes to constrain
sidelobe/backlobe levels - this technique can increase the edge taper,
increasing the beamwidth for a given aperture size.

A beamwidth of one degree, or for that matter, any angle other than zero
requires use of the inverse square law for PFD, or an inverse law for field
strength.

Chris

 

In sci.physics Timo A. Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Aug 2, 11:25?am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

The inverse square law applies to isotropic radiators. No real world
RF antenna is an isotropic radiator.
The inverse square law applies to anisotropic radiators, too.

So you are saying a perfectly collimated beam follows the inverse
square law?

Yes, he is, Jim! And the reason for that is because a "perfectly
collimated" beam simply does not exist!

It certainly does mathematically.

Not even then, if the beam is required to have finite energy flux [1] and
be a solution of the Helmholtz equation (or even the paraxial wave
equation).

I think a better phrasing of your original point would have been "The
inverse square law applies to the far field of a radiator." Don't like the
inverse square law? Stay in the near field, where beams can be collimated
rather than becoming spherical waves, or you can get faster than 1/r^2
fall-off from higher-order multipole sources.

But while many (including myself) are picking on the details, your
original point that high frequencies can allow highly directive
transmission is spot on. Also the point made by another that the
Earth-ionosphere waveguide avoids the inverse square law too. Tough luck
for the frequencies in the middle - all they're good for is broadcast
transmission when you want more bandwidth than you're allowed at the lower
frequencies.

[1] Infinite energy flux can deliver unto you infinite plane waves and
Bessel beams, which are perfectly collimated, but not physically
realisable.

--
Timo

Most reasonable response yet.

The geometry of the inverse square law is predicated upon radiation
from a point source.

The field from a real radiator approaches following the inverse
square law as the distance increases such that the divergence
approaches that of a point source.

Given a good enough beam former, that distance may become an astronomical
distance.

The collimating characteristics of many antennas are such that you can
not be on this planet and be far enough away to have enough divergence
to approximate inverse square law behavior.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[christofire]

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
newss3fm5-kpo.ln1@mail.specsol.com...

In sci.physics Timo A. Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Aug 2, 11:25?am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

The inverse square law applies to isotropic radiators. No real
world
RF antenna is an isotropic radiator.
The inverse square law applies to anisotropic radiators, too.

So you are saying a perfectly collimated beam follows the inverse
square law?

Yes, he is, Jim! And the reason for that is because a "perfectly
collimated" beam simply does not exist!

It certainly does mathematically.

Not even then, if the beam is required to have finite energy flux [1] and
be a solution of the Helmholtz equation (or even the paraxial wave
equation).

I think a better phrasing of your original point would have been "The
inverse square law applies to the far field of a radiator." Don't like
the
inverse square law? Stay in the near field, where beams can be collimated
rather than becoming spherical waves, or you can get faster than 1/r^2
fall-off from higher-order multipole sources.

But while many (including myself) are picking on the details, your
original point that high frequencies can allow highly directive
transmission is spot on. Also the point made by another that the
Earth-ionosphere waveguide avoids the inverse square law too. Tough luck
for the frequencies in the middle - all they're good for is broadcast
transmission when you want more bandwidth than you're allowed at the
lower
frequencies.

[1] Infinite energy flux can deliver unto you infinite plane waves and
Bessel beams, which are perfectly collimated, but not physically
realisable.

--
Timo

Most reasonable response yet.

The geometry of the inverse square law is predicated upon radiation
from a point source.

The field from a real radiator approaches following the inverse
square law as the distance increases such that the divergence
approaches that of a point source.

Given a good enough beam former, that distance may become an astronomical
distance.

The collimating characteristics of many antennas are such that you can
not be on this planet and be far enough away to have enough divergence
to approximate inverse square law behavior.

Jim Pennino

Sorry ... you have a screw loose.

Chris

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
John Larkin wrote
Eeyore wrote
John Larkin wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

And you?

I piss on clowns like you from a great height.

You get to like that or lump it, child.

What could you possibly know about great heights?

I'm hard pressed to tell who's the least imaginative insulter.
Cahill or Speed.

Both are amateurs, at technology and at insulting.

You three clowns in spades.

Oh dear that actually made me laugh out loud.

A brainless jerk insults 3 engineers whose products
have sold in the (most likely tens of ) thousands

Just another pathetic excuse for an insult any 2 year old could leave for dead.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
John Fields wrote

Geez, Mommy, are those the only chices I'm allowed to have?

Yep, and if you dont like it, do the decent thing and hang yourself or sumfin.

You know you're not really very good at this.
I'll have to tell Bertei I've met you.

Just another pathetic excuse for an insult any 2 year old could leave for dead.

 

In sci.physics christofire <christofire@btinternet.com> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
newss3fm5-kpo.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Timo A. Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Aug 2, 11:25?am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

The inverse square law applies to isotropic radiators. No real
world
RF antenna is an isotropic radiator.
The inverse square law applies to anisotropic radiators, too.

So you are saying a perfectly collimated beam follows the inverse
square law?

Yes, he is, Jim! And the reason for that is because a "perfectly
collimated" beam simply does not exist!

It certainly does mathematically.

Not even then, if the beam is required to have finite energy flux [1] and
be a solution of the Helmholtz equation (or even the paraxial wave
equation).

I think a better phrasing of your original point would have been "The
inverse square law applies to the far field of a radiator." Don't like
the
inverse square law? Stay in the near field, where beams can be collimated
rather than becoming spherical waves, or you can get faster than 1/r^2
fall-off from higher-order multipole sources.

But while many (including myself) are picking on the details, your
original point that high frequencies can allow highly directive
transmission is spot on. Also the point made by another that the
Earth-ionosphere waveguide avoids the inverse square law too. Tough luck
for the frequencies in the middle - all they're good for is broadcast
transmission when you want more bandwidth than you're allowed at the
lower
frequencies.

[1] Infinite energy flux can deliver unto you infinite plane waves and
Bessel beams, which are perfectly collimated, but not physically
realisable.

--
Timo

Most reasonable response yet.

The geometry of the inverse square law is predicated upon radiation
from a point source.

The field from a real radiator approaches following the inverse
square law as the distance increases such that the divergence
approaches that of a point source.

Given a good enough beam former, that distance may become an astronomical
distance.

The collimating characteristics of many antennas are such that you can
not be on this planet and be far enough away to have enough divergence
to approximate inverse square law behavior.

Jim Pennino

Sorry ... you have a screw loose.

Chris

Sorry you can't understand junior high school geometry.

Let's try it this way:

The inverse square law is predicated upon radiation from a point
source.

Any radiator with real area doesn't become a point until you are an
infinite distance from it.

Therefor, for a real area at less than an infinite distance, the
inverse square law is an approximation to what really happens.

The quality of the approximation depends on the real area and the
distance from it.

Got it now?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Larkin wrote
Eeyore wrote
John Larkin wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

And you?

I piss on clowns like you from a great height.

You get to like that or lump it, child.

What could you possibly know about great heights?

I'm hard pressed to tell who's the least imaginative insulter.
Cahill or Speed.

Both are amateurs, at technology and at insulting.

You three clowns in spades.

Oh dear that actually made me laugh out loud.

A brainless jerk insults 3 engineers whose products
have sold in the (most likely tens of ) thousands

Just another pathetic excuse for an insult any 2 year old could leave for dead.

Search ebay for "studiomaster" in my case..

Irrelevant to how pathetic you are at insults, and even very basic
stuff like working out what can be done about terrorists in spades.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields wrote

Geez, Mommy, are those the only chices I'm allowed to have?

Yep, and if you dont like it, do the decent thing and hang yourself or sumfin.

You know you're not really very good at this.
I'll have to tell Bertei I've met you.

Just another pathetic excuse for an insult any 2 year old could leave for dead.

I'll be sure to let Bertei know you passed on your regards.

Retake Bullshitting 101, child.