"art" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
David
we totally disagree, you have a hang up on applying a time varying
field to a electric charge. There is absolute no reason that you can
take
a stand on that.

of course i can, rf is a time varying phenomenon by definition. you
can't
communicate via static fields, by definition, so they are of no use in
this
discussion.

David, it stops being a static field alone if a time varying fiels is
applied


You say that you worked in space communication well
ask for a second opinion from one of your former associates or even
ckeck with your Alma Mata before you dig a hole that is to deep to get
out of.Remember that as we get older we all have senior moments and I
may well be having more than you so hang in there!

no, i don't work in space communications other than occasionally
listening
to ariss.


Regarding the need for a new program that just can't be true, NEC is
based on known mathematical laws period. When programs first came out I
struggled with that but I then realised that NEC is NOT based on
empirical data so what you are saying is just not correct.
I urge you to rethink that one out again.



of course it's true. nec and other existing antenna modelling software
is
all based on maxwell's equations so by definition it assumes time varying
fields and coupling between all the elements of the antenna. if you are
trying to do something and ignore that coupling then none of the existing
programs will work for you.

David,
I never said there is no coupling, in mathematics there are ways of
removing avariable by the use of simultaneous equations. If you can't
get around it then ofcourse you have to go the labourious route for
full determination and that is compicated Going the Gaussian rout
removes all that laborious mathematical work. Look at any mathematical
sample of such an array and it all comes down to ZI of the elements
involved, nothing more is needed
and coupling is part of the journey but not of the solution and the
solution by my method goes straight to the the solution by using the
same laws that have been in existant for years.

then you have nothing new and you should be made aware of the limitations of
the software you are using so that you don't get misled any further.
unfortunately i don't believe that you have really found anything new, you
are probably just ignoring important parts of the solution because you think
you can incorrectly apply a static case simplification to a time varying
one... sorry, that doesn't work. you may find some examples in certain
cases where it looks like it works, but in general it won't.