"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator,
preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.

I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and
hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he
must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error

From "Fields And Waves In Communication Electronics" Ramo, Whinnery, and Van
Duzer, 2nd printing 1967... ppg 237 they have just stated the 4 classical
Maxwell's equations in integral form and are explaining them in words.
equation (1) is the surface integral of the vector displacement = the
volume integral of the charge density.... which they explain as "Equation
(1) is seen to be the familiar form of Gauss's law utilized so much in
Chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of
time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed
surface _at a given instant_ is equal to the charge enclosed by the surface
_at that instant_" (emphasis shown by _ x_ is THEIRS not mine). Now note
art, that this shows that the classical Gauss's law that you are trying to
add into the Maxwell equations is indeed already there. Also, as they point
out it implicitly accounts for time variation without the need to add a
specific time term to the equations.

Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art

six pack! ugh, i haven't touched a six pack in years, i much prefer real
beer. is that your problem art, too many cheap six packs??