"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
No I wouldn't call it "art" it is just science gone awry.
If you go back to 101 you will be one of many who
got into trouble with Divergence and Curl but chose to
believe the books because that is what you are being
examined for. Review Helmholts, Stokes and Gauss on
statics now that you are not compelled to suck up
everything. As far as a dish is concerned for HF
that is not really a problem anymore when you understand
how the misconceptions that took hold around "curl"
I'll give you a hint John look at a "conservative field"
where "vector value is zero" statement is made in
the books based on what the masters said and then
think it out for yourself ! As far as satellites are concerned
where circular polarisation is chosen via a turnstile, just
imagine what it will do for antennas when it is proven that
parallism is not the only way to go. You are quite correct
that all is not known and that is purely from
misconceptions about "curl" put out via faulty
mathematics from the masters.
Back to the dish antenna, yes that does appear to be
one of the best not because of its traditional nature
but because the dish can be formed in equilibrium
such that more than one vector points in the same direction.
You will understand that better when you read my write up
when I get around to it or my patent application is printed..

Regards
Art






Please explain the "faulty mathmatics from the masters"
Please show equations with proofs.