art wrote:


Frank, choose your friends! Alpha and Beta were the first two letters
of the alphabet,

But nucleus and electron would be much clearer to the reader.

I do not wish to represent myself as a physicist.

Don't worry, you don't.

It is clear you don't know how electricity flows in a material.

Your example of the balls on the string is wrong. You state that under high
magnification the middle balls do not move. If this were to be true there
can be no energy transferred from one end to the other. This is a simple
example of elastic collisions and conservation of momentum. High school
physics covers this material.

Your concept of electrons leaving the surface and returning at anything
other than significantly elevated temperatures is fantasy.

You make the extention of Gauss' law to include time. However, from what I
know, Gauss' law applies to electroSTATICS. If this can extended to include
time, and you are the first to observe this, then some sort of rigorous
proof would be appropriate.

You might want to look at a basic book on electromechanics. You need a
better grasp of the fundamentals




On
the multi decimal figures they are computor derived
and I do not feel it to be my place to manipulate figures. On the
ficticious three element beam it was clearly laid out as a sample that
in no way was an extension of a Yagi beamm where all elements were
resonant and not planar or parasitic in form.
Tt clearly laid out the polarity of the gains mentioned which by the
way you did not do. In fact I don't know what you did or where your
figures originated from. The sample beam was drawn up purely to
demonstrate the dexterity of positions plus the multi resonance and it
was accompanied by the process from whence the dimensions came from,
which this group in its entirety stated as implausable some weeks ago.
As an adder I gave swr curves together with gain curves to demonstrate
the absense of parasitics
which for a yagi demands choices of desirebles ( there is a whole
chaptor in the ARRL handbook about this problem.) As an aside I also
included in the array an element which was not only at an angle
relative to that around it but also of a length unrelated to a half
wave length. Now you obviously are not aware of the vagrances of
antennas otherwise you would not have replied like you did with an
example missing details of measurement, phase and to any point that
perhaps you were trying to make. I could have drawn a high gain
antenna of half the length of a yagi with the same gain but that would
have strayed from what I was trying to emphasise i.e. an advance in
science..

To advance science, you would need to provide your evidence in a manner that
could be validated by those knowlegable in the fields of physics and
electrodynamics. However, looking at the first half of your page, there is
nothing but analogies that are not applicable to the concept you try to
present. Actually the facts you try to present are just plain wrong.

You are obviously out of touch with respect to antennas by
what you write
as are others who are declaring their lack of knoweledge by what they
say. What goes around comes around and you will notice that nobody has
faulted the theory espoused for the array other than your word of
ficticious which you never explained.

What theory? Your starting point contains so many misperceptions that
nothing points in a direction that would lead a reader to believe whatever
follows.

You require 'equilibrium' to satisfy your concept at every step of the way.
However an antenna is driven from a transmitter. This input energy would
tend to eliminate any state of equilibrium. Your initial statement of
moving charges in a material and applying Gauss' law and requiring
equilibrium doesn't work. If the charges are moving, where is the
equilibrium? (You also never define equilibrium therefore any assertion of
equilibrium is meaningless. Nobody can tell what you are talking about.)



Give me something for the record
please.Do you have a high school diploma?

I do.

Art
Art

Now, I could be wrong, but from my understanding of engineering, I think
there are serious problems with what you propose.

craigm