"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
Art wrote:
"I thought you had a trackrecord in academics so you had an
understanding of Maxwell`s laws."

Maxwell`s equations are necessary and sufficient to describe radiation
from any antenna. I long ago suggested in this newsgroup that Art read a
fine book, "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith,Jr., now reprinted by Scitech Publishing Inc.

In the first chapter Griffith gives a brief history of electrical
knowledge. On page 3 he says:

"We had, for instance, Coulomb`s law, relating to electric charge and
the mechanical force it produces; Ampere`s Rule, connecting current and
magnetism;

Ampere do not connect current and magnetism. For Ampere (and Gauss, Weber
and many others) magnetism is an illusion.

Gauss` law, giving the relationship between electric charge
and the field of the electric potential; Ohm`s law, relating voltage,
current, and resistance; and Faraday`s law, concerning the relationship
between the magnetic field and the induced voltage. Nothing seemed to
tie these miscellanious relationships together, althoigh they appeared
to pertain to the same general subject."

The same means the one. Which of the three: gravity, electricity and
magnetism?


Perhaps it was the working of a fateful pattern, perhaps mere
coincidennce, that there was born in the same year that Faraday made his
great discovery the man who was destined to correlate and organize all
these separate rules into the modern electromagnetic theory."

He corelated not all but only the two. In EM the two exist. We need
eliminate the two from the three.

"Maxwell`s Generalization"

This posting is long enough so I`ll stop.

The most important is: "althoigh they appeared to pertain to the same
general subject."
Art is trying to organize them.
It seems to me that he (like many of you) discovered that antennas radiated
something from the ends.
Do you see it also?
S*