art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 17:46, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 25 Jun, 16:21, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:57:32 -0700, art wrote:
'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact,
Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain'
Arthur,
I have no problem with that statement so it
provides an ideal starting point.
There are accepted convention in faithfully quoting a document you are
immediately responding to. To take my words and re-arrange them to
suit your own way of understanding is NOT a quote from me.
If you will be specific I will gladly change to your satisfaction
and apologise if required. I don't remember using double quotes("..")
but I am not going to quibble.
My understanding is that Maxwell had a host
of theorems by many scientists from which
to draw information from, many of which
gave the connection of the statics to
time domain aproach.
I am not aware of any evidence that he drew on Gauss
for this since Gauss had not provided this extension.
Can you supply me a source that verifies this fact?
You mean like he NAMED one of his laws after Gauss? Doesn't that give
you a clue? Dr. D. already supplied the source, I responded to it and
corrected Dr. D's error of attribution.
I would be more than happy to read that
source if you state without qualification that Gauss's law of Statics
was modified by Maxwell to form a basis of a radiating antenna
is illustrated in that book.
I know of no reference anywhere that refers to a radiator or cluster
of
radiators loaded with static particles in a closed loop or "pill box"
as defined by Gaussian law. Certainly the good Doctor did not intimate
that such a reference was in that book but I welcome a snippit of
that conversation that tells me otherwise.
If you can state what page where it can be seen I would be most
gratefull and certainly would provide it to the PTO as required
by law . If Feynman supplied that history that would be fine by me.
Such a reference is not only required by law but it would
also provide a reference of prior use of that "law" against which
my request can be referred to for similarities, together with
a description of that antenna that the public can also see
for there own education. Providing this reference would be
seen as a courtesy by me and supplied without rancour and
certainly would provide what the group has been asking for
i.e. something that everybody can understand and be grateful
for.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
...........................
The rest to be responded to later if necessary or required
Read the source we BOTH refer to. It has been offered to you by us
BOTH.
We then come to a very important question with regard
to my patent request.
Since you say it has already been invented
Show my statement, in my own words, quoted in the accepted convention
from the exact source (in other words, highlight the statement in the
original posting I made, and post that here).
If you cannot perform the minimum practices of quoting, then there's
nothing more to be said.
I will deal with this after question 1 is responded to in a proper
manner
Question 1 is the very description that the naysayers are asking for
so they can understand the antenna but Q1 comes before Q2.
In fact if question 1 is satified it also satisfies Question 2
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Art et al.
I am not aware if this reference has been posted to this newsgroup.
http://n-t.ru/tpe/ng/gvg.htm
It seems to concern research conducted in Russia and to be relevant to what
Art is trying to explain.
The article and references appear genuine as far as I can ascertain, but the
English translation leaves a bit to be desired.
Strictly a neutral bystander in this discussion
Regards
Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Mike, How you came across this and why is something
I could not possibly have done myself. I find it unbelievable
that somebody in Russia would collect all this information
and place things in their correct order and where the
information came from and it arrives in some wierd way
at this newsgroup at this specific time.
Much of what he is stating is relavent to Gauss and
his input to science and what use was made of his input.
He has explained things so much better than I ever could
but then he is a scientist with authority where as I am
just a retired engineer blindly finding a way thru science and
radiation. This paper is a keeper for me and will be valuable
to me in so many ways. I note that you are neutral but
you have obviously have been reading my posts for you to
make the connection and sharing it with the group.
I can't thank you enough for doing what you have done
and it is certainly no problem to me that you are neutral.
What is important that views that I hold have now been published
on the other side of the pond that gives a modicom of credability
to what I have been sharing. Thanks again
Regards
Art Unwin....KB9MZ.....XG
Nikolai Noskov. He thinks Einstein's ideas on relativity are
total bunk. He does have a nice paper on the propulsion
mechanism of flying saucers, though. That seems to fit with
much of the material on this newsgroup, lately. I guess it was
inevitable that the twisted logic of insanity would eventually prevail
here. It's much easier to just be nuts than to make an honest attempt to
understand the physical universe.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH