On Jan 16, 12:18*pm, "Frank" wrote:
I thought it would be better to accept the responses of the
news group as factual. *Now I must determine why
equilibrium is not understood as this is a requirement for
any radiator vector diagram.

It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by
the term: "Radiator vector diagram".

I have quite a lot of books that were recommended reading
in US Universities so I will read thru those for what they say
about equilibrium........

I have 9 books on electromagnetics and antennas. *The word
"Equiblibrium" does not appear in any of the indexes.

......and why it has been dumped or if Newtons laws have
been corrected e.t.c. *Without an understanding of equilibrium all
physics as I know it falls apart!. Thus a chasm is in place between me
and the group and I have to search for the reason.

There has been no correction to Newtonian mechanics, and there
is no violation of Newton's laws in electromagnetics.

As for reading books on electromagnetics. *I cannot understand how
it is possible without knowledge of math. *Do you understand any
of the following?: *line integral, surface integral, volume integral,
vector "dot" product, vector "cross" product, gradient, divergence,
curl, "Del", and vector magnetic potential. *With these tools
it is possible to calculate the E and H fields at a point in space --
based on an assumption of current distribution. *The hard part
of computational electromagnetics is to determine the actual
current distribution on a radiator.

Thanks to all for your inputs
Art

73,

Frank



Frank
As I said earlier, I accept the thought of forward and reverse flow
of AC current together with the resulting contra flow of Eddy currents
on different levels of the surface of a radiator, all at the same
time. Thus at this time there is no pressing reason to expose myself
further in terms of the education that I have retained. Now that
Richard's book has substantiated my aproach via Gauss
I can now procede in the direction of antennas that are not in a
straight line and at varying elevations. Programs on antennas are
available for the user to follow this cause of action which are
committed to Maxwells laws so these efforts will not resolve around my
personal thoughts, just arrays that are termed in equilibrium and the
existance of particles with respect to radiation.
From the very start, when I extended Gaussian law of statics to that
of Maxwell, I have sought council to the effect that consequent
determinations prove the action of particles. Postings pretty much
accept that antenna programs are correct thus I can realistically use
that as a proof.
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought
especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not
accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)