On 24 Jun, 17:49, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
art wrote:
On 24 Jun, 15:54, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art, KB9MZ......XG wrote:

"Thus we see the escaping particles emminating from at least two points
in poyntings circles not as a continuous wave but as two or more swarms
of particles in the form of an energy wave in what is known as the near
field."

Despite Art`s disdain of radio amateurs, competent authors, and parrots,
perhaps a mechanical engineer might be advised to consult
"Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith,
Jr., an electrical engineer from M.I.T., and a radio amateur, N5SU. He
clearly explains how directional antennas work.

Art should also study "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides" by
King, Mimno, and Wing. It was written for non-electrical engineers.

On page 86 it says:
"An effective abntenna is always an electric circuit that does not
satisfy the conditions for the near zone."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

None of the above go into detail about the conservative and non
concervative
field transitions with respect to Gaussian law of Statics.
I don't think anybody has a problem with respect to planar or two
dimension
radiation forms but with three dimensional forms as with a sphere
radio amateurs
cannot seem to come to grips with it. As I have stated before it is
one thing
to learn things and it is another thing to understand it and it is
this
that separates engineers from amatuers .

Show me one resident of this newsgroup
which includes you that is able to discuss conservative and
non conservative fields, not one has come forward with corrective
analysis and that includes you.

Not one has discussed how a cluster of resonant
elements can actualy radiate when only one feed point is applied.

Not one has delved into why the mathematics of a non concervative
field
when a time varying current is applied provide the same results that
Maxwell
determined without the use of the expanded Gaussian law.

Maxwell had many observations to play with which he condenses to four
laws,
that did not mean that the others were invalid but none provided a
transition from static to dynamic thus there was nothing at hand for
Maxwell to use for transition or the meshing with other observations.
When I added a varying time metric to Gaussian law that transition
became available
Some people have learned the equations by Maxwell but it appears
that few or none truly understand what Maxwell did to condense all to
four basic laws. Using Gaussian law to duplicate the process that
Maxwell initiated has not been done prior to my findings. Thus
nothing is in the books and niether were all the clues provided
by Gaussian law as evidence to formulate a Gaussian array.
If one was to use a optimisation computor program to find
the best array is it not surprising that even tho the program
is based on Maxwell laws it gyrates towards an three dimension
Gaussian array which follows the same trail as partially
provided by Gauss?
Because amateur minds cannot follow the inticracies of the
formation of Maxwells laws does not invalidate anything and
nothing provided by the naysayers such as you, have provided
one iota of intelligence to validate or invalidate what
I have provided.
Why? because it is not printed in the books yet,
so parrots such as you cannot verbalise what has not been written.

And finally on top of all that provided above, a Doctor John E
Davis
from MIT came out of nowhere and provided mathematical documentation
that agreed with what I was saying that connected with existing
Maxwellian law.
Richard, time is on my side, there are many experts out there who
understand physics as well as going thru just the learning process you
have gone thru. All the bad things said by you and others
will go by the wayside for historians to study the phenomina
of resistance to change and where new students have another
avenue to study to unlock the secrets of nature.
Regardless of what amateurs say all is not known about radiation
and I look forward to the next step made in the quest of knowekedge.
Art KB9MZ.....XG

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) would certainly be surprised to see
his ideas used in this way. Art, if none of us swine can digest the
pearls you've cast before us, why do you continue to cast? You're using
the wrong side of your brain, Art. Maybe you _are_ a misunderstood
genius, but if you are, it's because you've lost the ability to
present your ideas in logical form. Anger and name calling are no
substitute for clarity and logic. Maybe you should get someone to help
you present your ideas using the same language the rest of us
use.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom, with all due respect I respond in like form to name calling.
I know that what I am saying is enough to spark the interest of
academics.
Before I opened my mouth on this I asked and got conformation of a
discovery by a academic. On this newsgroup an academic popped
in and provided all the mathematical reasoning to connect up with
Maxwell so academia understands the logic of what I am saying.,
So now I am dealing with amateurs so I use amateur antenna computor
programs to disemminate an array that I provided which the
Maxwellian based program prompty did But I am dealing with amateurs
you believe all is known about antennas but I do know there are a
couple
of educated people on this newsgroup. So I start off my explanation
starting with Gauss's law of Statics with the standard 'Pill box,
picture
of a gaussian field which then generated a conservative field.
I went back to the very basics of what I expected american colleges
teach their student. To my surprise I found that those I thought was
educated knew about a Gaussian field and worst of all were confused
about the word "equiulibrium" which is part and parcel of Gaussian
law!
Even so I persued the subject hoping to find where the discontinuity
of education occurs but with out success. It becomes very hard to
keep my composure when people I thought were engineers of some sort
in actuallity were not even tho they baldfacely state that they are
engineers.
I am quite sure that even an older engineer may have forgotten the
basics
he would not lose his instinct to enquire at a point where he was
lost.
In this news group I never got past the basics of Gaussian law because
members did not know enough to ask a question. On the other hand
I got conformation of what I found to be a legitamate discovery.
So why the big gap in knoweledge? Is it resistance to some thing new?
Well JS got a torrent of disbelievers while all admitted they were
not quite sure of the design of the R.I. vertical so why the
assurance
of it being a fake? Even tho some denied that it could work even
nowing that
some information was missing the denial was based on the assertion
that
they had done all before, every thing was known.
So Tom even tho I have applied for a patent I am searching for the
return
of some of the more expert antenna people that have been driven away
in the
past so a true discussion or debate could start. True the debate has
not
yet begun in America but I have no doubts that academics are
reviewing
it in other Countries. Now you say it is a question of logic which by
its nature provides a trail or string of information. I thus start
with
Gauss's law but everybody goes blank! What do I have to do, go back
to
all the participants in science prior to Maxwell? No I can't because
the education gap is prior to Gauss but as yet nobody has placed a
morsel of challenge to what I have stated!.
Frankly I don't believe I should be the one to blame for the lack
of knoweledge or communication on this newsgroup if the group
consists of mainly high school graduates based on the knoweledge
that they expound. And finally a academic arrives on the scene
understands the discussion and provides the mathematic knoweledge
required for afformation. Yes you guessed it, in the main he was
rejected. Why? Because he didn't explain himself properly after
several tries. Well that excuse is getting pretty lame!
.. Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG