On 18 Feb, 12:47, "Mike Lucas" wrote:
"art" wrote
big snip Wimpie I do like your style of debate even where some statements
appear lacking in thought.
big snip
Back to the subject. So in summation Faradays rotation is a subject of
equilibrium and in
his case refers to cosmic and where "curl " is a derivative thereof
with respect to earth, which as you state will be shown in the E and H
vector format. Hopefully you can follow all that and prove it for
yourself with a vertical radiator design.
Best Regards
Art

Art: I have been working on my closed_mindedness, and feel that I will
make
significant improvement if you will provide me with enough hard data to
build a version of your magnificent antenna.
1. Has a physical version of your antenna been constructed?
2. I have sworn off of EZNEC, so I would need a copy of your antenna
model, in any commercially available computor (sic) program format..
3. I have access to aluminum in plate, tube, or foil form. Would I need
anything else?
4. What would be the best way to feed the array, so as to prevent
intermodial
dirfraction?
5. I can mount the main elements on some Milford trunnions that I have saved
for just such a project. Do you think that bipolar status is attainable?

Glad to see you doing so well.

Mike W5CHR
Memphis

Mike, As you can see from this thread that I have nmoved on a bit from
my antenna to think about Faraday rotation which academics view it
from a D.C
application and where I have extended it to a time variant form where
it is not necessarily confined to ferrous applications relationship to
life w2hich would provide an offset angle of half of that seen by
radio radiation
shown by curl which by virtue of its non cancallation properties
becomes twice the value because of time varience. Intriuing connection
there to Newtons law for ut +1/2 ft squared but I have moved off
subject.
I am not computor literate so I have to have help in formulating a
page to describe my ramblings. This moves so slow because I keep
finding spelling errors and unclear enunciation which in the past has
made me a subject of ridicule. Maybe tonight I will let it go as is
regardless of the consequences and place it on the web. I really have
made it difficult for myself by not keeping on subject and deriving in
my own mind how molecular movement occurs in the cycle of formation of
radiation such that skin depth
can be rationalised as the depth of visible decay which I ventured on
this thread some time ago and immediately was assigned to the luny
farm. This theoretical reasoning may well detract from the antenna
design in the minds of some so I have the dilema as to whether I merge
or separate them. If you put the term Gauss or gaussion regularly on
Google it wont be to long before you can pull it up or you can wait
for the onslaught of naysayers that will inevitably occur who
constantly refer to what is not correct while ignoring any small
advance that may be of interest.
Regards
Art