On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:18:44 -0700, art wrote:

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.

Hi Arthur,

Your statement above shown following the initial
is a corrupted interpretation, not a quote of mine.

The statement that follows with the initial
is a complete and accurate quote of mine.

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.

Nearly any Fields text discusses this with 100s of pages of math,
Feynman skips the math (no one can challenge him in that department)
and simply dwells on the science.

I know of no reference anywhere that refers to a radiator or cluster
of
radiators

I gave you references for Bennetti and Tosi. If you choose to
"forget" them, I see little point in this humble enquiry of yours.

loaded with static particles in a closed loop or "pill box"
as defined by Gaussian law.

As you are asking for references of Gaussian Law, as it has been
extended into the time domain; then, yes, it is obvious you are not
aware. However, you are also not aware that they also leave behind
statics for good and obvious reasons: radiation is dynamic, not
static.

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.

Given your bipolar attitudes and posturing, I seriously doubt you
would express gratitude of any meaningful measure. And as far as the
requirements of the law go, that's between you and the judge. Further,
my already having provided these references in the past (something you
steadfastly refuse to do for others irrespective of their color or
stripe) would it seem ironic of me to suggest, as you have in the
past, that I am not here to do your job?

In Volume 2, Feynman devotes chapter 5 to what is called "Application
of Gauss' Law." You have been plagiarizing it for months. It employs
surfaces, it employs equilibrium, and it is specifically about STATIC
charges, or charges moving in an uniform motion (which is to say
non-accelerating, which, of course, would bring about radiation). All
such matters necessarily restrict the change of charge to 0 (there is
no time element).

This is can all be found in a first semester Physics syllabus which
is, in essence, an elaboration of High School Physics.

This is all a rehash of the thread that Mark already supplied a
reference for! The citations are all there!

At the expense of bandwidth, I will repeat the cogent points:
First from Dr. D:
In volume
II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the title of chapter 15,
section 6 is "What is true for statics is false for dynamics".

I pointed out to Dr. D that he had neglected to read the footnote
provided by Feynman, so as to not trip up the student in unforgivable
misunderstandings:
At the bottom of that Table is a footnote explaining the bold arrow of
your Gauss' law. It reads:
"The equations marked by an arrow (-») are Maxwell's equations."

The table equation, and the one you reference in the text are both
Maxwell's.

I then went on to complete the reference of "Gauss' Law":
Then in chapter 18, section 1 paragraph 3 you will find the statement:
"In dynamic as well as static fields, Gauss' law is always valid".

That chapter, too, clearly defines the same equation you are making an
appeal to as "Maxwell's equations." Observe Table 18-1 "Classical
Physics"

There is, of course, more material in that thread that bears DIRECTLY
to "Gauss' Law" being extended into the time domain by Maxwell. This
is the stuff of a second semester Physics syllabus (at least when I
took it, it was). I will leave that to the bailiff to remind you of
your legal responsibilities for complete disclosure to the PTO. I am
sure the examiner has already studied this material (it is normally
required of them besides the Law degree); luckily it has no bearing on
the issuance of any patent.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC