Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
this was occurring when the subject has been studied to death over the
years
It was when I reviewed past works of the masters I came across this
error
and you must realise that in the old days decades passed before it was
studied by others. George Green like others such as Gauss had a niche
in mathematics a lot of which came from non uniform studies such that
later reiterations of what they had deduced was shaken around and
rehashed
after death such that if an error was introduced there were few who
could
refute it. Let's face it, if it is seen in a book in present day how
many would
be alert or foolhardy enough to refute it without changing context,
the naysayers
would immediatly shout, not pounce, from their lazy boys knowing full
well it
is easier to ridicule than to think things out for themselves.
Have you ever heard a monday morning quarterback prophesising two days
before the match and repeating it again on monday morning?
Art



John Smith I wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...
In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie



Geesh! Something we finally stand in total agreement with.

However, like most things in science, usually what we are hunting is
first "discovered" in a "practical" form, then the math is "found" to
explain, describe, and "predict" it and its "properties" ... such has
always been mankinds' lot--or, thanks for those goofy guys in their
basements with their goofy ideas ...

Still, an excellent and valid statement.

Warmest regards,
JS