On Sep 17, 12:18*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:40*pm, John Smith wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

Uhhh Art, you "were" actually responding to "JB", you are lucky I read
your posts, and that this one prompted me to respond (or, unlucky, I
guess it depends on how "you view it" grin ) ...

I realize "something IS wrong" with the basic platform all "antenna
theory/equations/formulas/maths/truths/etc." is/are built upon ... but
what that "something" is? ... all I can say, I am looking and wondering
... but then, so are many -- and, if you are one of that "many", you
already have foot on the right path ... need I include, IMHO?

Regards,
JS

Sorry about that. Don't you think it is odd that all computer programs
based on Maxwells laws reflect every thing I have stated? I am not a
computer freak
How I could make all this up and several computer programs made by
different
*people *both sides of the pond can reproduce without conivance a
computer program
that provides the details of every thing that I have stated?
None of this is in the antenna books or relavent books on science and
do you know why?
My generation has been taken over by computers where prior generations
resorted to origanal thought from first principles.
They accept that the computer will spill out a lot of inaplicable
information but feel the sorting problem
is so much easier for the lazy. Problem is that books on the sciences
have not had critical analysis by the following generation which
always call for revisions. The books used for supplying questions to
the computer are those taken from the books that never received the
normal generational
revisions. Sorting computer answers requires common sense but with the
absence of required revisions what one calls common sense is one that
needs revision ala garbage in garbage out. Now we get statements that
if more gain came from tipping antennas the world would have tipped
the towers
years ago. To me that is totally absent of common sence but for people
who rely on unrevised books it is perfectly understandable. If people
have discarded Universal laws then the computers will not reflect same
based on input. We have to many academics churning out physics papers
which reflects direction of past papers as a way of getting them
accepted and published and a path to a higher station. What we need is
design by first principles which other countries still have by not yet
smitten by computers and who are capable of original thought.
Universities in the industrial world state the books that must be
followedand the student realizes that the answer in the books are the
datum used by professors so.......... follow the same path formed by
those that proceded you as the primary for getting a job is that piece
of paper without original thought. There are many of past generations
that have
generalized about point radiation alas this generations belittles it
and successfully resist change. Sad * Sad * Sad
Art Unwin * * * KB9MZ........xg

If you really want us "lesser mortals" to appreciate your thoughts ,
why don't you just put down your formulations in terms of concrete
mathematical equations and post it to a website or some place as a
document or something. That way we can see what you mean. In all of
these I assume that your thoughts are at least expressible in terms of
the known mathematics.
We would appreciate your endeavor and who knows it can lead to a new
form of mathematics with your pure and powerful thoughts.
And don't think that I am saying you are wrong outright because what
you have said as reaction forces, are involved in a local neighborhood
of the electron and the field associated with it. But they don't quite
manifest in a way that you say they does to the best of my knowledge.
Moreover it is not quite a practical idea to think of individual
electrons and the reaction associated with them when they are in all
probable states and with well practically innumerable number of
electrons.

In case you don't like to quantify your thoughts and put them into
practical formulations which can be solved in finite number of
steps.... well I am sorry we will never be enlightened. And prefer to
look at an antenna the more conventional way. All these neglecting the
fact that mechanics of particles at microscopic level deviates
considerably from the macroscopic world formulations, the inclusion of
which might make this thread more bitter.
--DB