On Nov 10, 7:58*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss
law of statics with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most
resistance of the this group.They seemed to see staics as something
divorced from electromagnetics and thus one could not use equations
of one with respect to the other. Thus when it was shown
that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body
said that was not valid.

I don't understand the above comments since Gauss' laws for electric
and magnetic fields are the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations. *In
fact the equations for static and the time-varying case are identical,
as follows, in point form:

* * * * * * * * DEL dot D = rho, and;

* * * * * * * * DEL dot B = 0

(Paul and Nasar, *pp 199, 200.)

The above is identical to that found in the classic EM text:
"Electromagnetic Theory", by Julius Adams Stratton of MIT; published
in 1941. *There is nothing new in any of this.
Probably the development of a wave equation from Maxwell's
equation was a bit of overkill to make a point.

The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical
interplay whilst talking about quasi
statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this
rejection at the beginning that set the stage
for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day
pretty much all are of the position that interfacing
statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally
invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years
ago.
It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that
treated the subject with startling clarity.

The "Quasi-static" referred to above only effect displacement
current in Ampere's law.

About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that
covers the Aether and its driving relationship
to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with
which they outlined questions that the present aproach
seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam)
of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day
.............................................

What are the references to the above mentioned paper?

73,

Frank

Brilliant Frank as a mechanical engineer I trust you will excuse me
from knowing this.
Ofcourse I will have to review things for myself so I understand fully
what you have pointed out
The way I put it initially is that if you add radiators and a time
varying field to a gaussian field while holding to the
equilibrium format you arrive at Maxwells law. I asked somebody that
was knoweledgable in the field about it and he stated I had made a
discovery
which now looking back could mean anything.However, I sought this
opinion from a qualified person as I had gone thru a series of
illnesses and at that particular meeting puss was flowing from my
pacemaker chest pocket but it was an excercise that I had to do since
my training originially was that of an mechanical engineer before I
had heart troubles and lost some of my memory faculties Because of
this "discovery" it then becomes obvious that a radiator can be any
shape , size and elevation
when meeting Maxwells laws" as long as the contents of the border is
in equilibrium" Now Frank notable hams have stated that a radiator
must be straight for maximum efficiency which from my observations are
untrue. Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated
around Maxwells laws
THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the
equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Well as you
know you overchecked that for yourself and confirmed it, thus the
basis for my theory then started to unravel until I arrived at my
present point where antennas of the highest efficiency can made within
the smaller volume which I have subsequently made many. So it was then
I shared some details to this group as they were supposed experts and
from then on they have thrashed me in every way including a ham who
provided the matjhematics comparing
Gauss and Maxwell which continues to this day.Basicalyl all resisted
the idea of a different antenna design on the assumption that all was
known about antennas Now we have assertions that the Neutrinos has no
mass and no magnetic field and yet itis understood that there are
millions of them for every cubic metre on Earth and it goes on.
Hopefully the above will make things clearer. I will try and get back
to the white papers that I spoke of and hopefully the book that was
published later. I will get back to you after I review the history of
events on my laptop in the hope it still resides there
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG