On 19 Apr, 11:22, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
On 9 Mar, 07:49, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

But Jimmie my friend, now you have an understanding of Gaussian law
what is preventing you adding the metric of time or a length of time
to the statics law?
Art,

Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865.
The detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them
today, was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However,
Maxwell gets the credit for adding the time contribution.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Yes, but he never made it in terms of reference to antennas. By using
the conservative field transition to a non conservative field as a
follow up example the equation now has more meaning than just
mathematics in that it provides a datum for maximum efficiency.
I don't believe anybody evoked Gaussian law to express a situation for
maximum efficiency
of radiation by specifying an array of resonant radiators which also
was never included in Maxwells laws. Science is improved by what is
seen to many as minor steps that apparently everybody was aware of but
did not know how to take advantage of that knoweledge to provide a
fresh data base for the state of the art. The World was aware of
adding the time contribution but no one, no college, no scientist, no
author, just nobody
provided a kernel of knoweledge regarding equilibrium in connection to
efficient electromagnetic radiation. Knoweledge of a relationship is
one thing , puting that knoweledge to use is required for the
advancement otherwise it plays dead for centuries.
In life everybody claims that an invention is nothing but only one
gets off the couch.
When the application is published you and others have the right to
petition the PTO showing prior publication or prior knoweledge with
respect to the state of the art. This ofcourse requires more than just
words such as spouted off from this newsgroup .You really have to walk
the walk and if you don't understand the underpinnings of what I term
a Gaussian antenna or challege it as a sample of nonsense then it is
you that must provide the facts that make it so and this thread shows
your inadequacy to do so. Only one person came forward to
acknoweledged the presence of conclusive mathematical support supplied
by
John Davis and where the rest of this long thread are in denial,
occupied by empty words of denial without proof. Seems like most
threads are reaching the hundred mark on this group because of
collective confusion of what is really tought at teaching institutions
and the effects of time that make these teachings all different.
Art

Art,

All I can say is that Dr. Davis is a lot smarter than the rest of us. He
quickly recognized pure BS and bailed out from this discussion in a hurry.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well Gene you have admitted in the past to having an extensive
background in physics, three
educational degrees no less, are you still in denial with respect to
the authenticity of the mathematics provided by Dr Davis? You never
have enunciated a change from your prior comments regarding that
subject.
Also you have pointed out that all is known by you yet you keep
stating that the Gaussian connection with respect to static fields
have no connection academically with radiation but never with any
proof. You and many of the other naysayers can point to an example of
radiation that stems from Gaussian law. Many have even stated that
there is no connection
between Gaussian law of statics and radiation even in the face of
irrifutable mathematics evidence provided. On the other side of the
coin people state it WAS already known in total opposition to other
posts that they have made. Ofcourse every body knew it they all read
it somewhere where the subject was discussed but memories appear to be
to hazy to recall exactly where it was discussed, used or totally
trashed. Now we have moved to Feynman and his series of teachings, did
he have a volume on the subject that was stolen at the outset? Gene
you have been given mathematical backing to what I have stated did you
get all those degrees without studying math? With all those degrees
you have you should be able to understand not only the math supplied
but also give a scientific analysis as to why
conservative fields and non conservative fields can prove or disprove
a continuum between statics and electromagnetism in a legible form
that enphasises your background knoweledge that you claim. Only once
in a while does a person get a real chance to show the value of his
wisdom and knoweledge to his peers and it should not be seen as
digging a hole for himself to hide in but sharing the benefits
obtained by obtaining many degrees in physics.You don't need to refer
to any books that discuss the subject you can teach it in your own
right, I for one is all ears for evidence gained from your many years
used to attain your honors that you talk about
Art