On Sep 22, 6:51*am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 7:33 pm, "christofire" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on,
by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with
a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on
the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through
it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying
to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is
composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the
charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. Krauss, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid
name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write
especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris

No it does not appear in Kraus book.

* That is incorrect, and I expect you know that to be the case. *All of what
I wrote above can be traced to sources such as Kraus, Jordan and Balmain,
and Jasik; books you may never have tried to read and understand (on the
basis of your comment).

*He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in trems of normal physics and cite a reference.
Surprised you dont know that!
Easily done. Boundary laws are based on Newtons laws where every
action has an equal and opposite reaction. So a subject under
discussion is placed inside an arbitrary border
where the forces of the contents must be equal to the sum of the
forces outside the boundary. Where does Krauss deviate from from
Maxwells laws? well for one thing his radiator differed from a full
WL or period so immediately he has strayed. Another thing is by
straying from a full WL he was unable to contain the electrostatic
field within a border
such as a quad. And it goes on especially with regards to his windings
pitch theory.
Thus the contents of the arbitrary boundary is now in a state of
equilibrium. this is true whether a unit of time has been added or not
to the equation.





*To do that you must think in terms of
wavelength. After all with respect to science all revolve around
boundary laws of the Universe and you blindly ignore that fact.

* How is there a boundary to the universe? *It is unbounded - the universe
is known to be expanding into empty space.

Hogwash. Nobody knows the extent of the Universe boundary. Every day
discoveries are made beyond our Universe so we are nowhere near the
point we can ascertain what forces
are required to contain a boundary.
Again I am surprised you didn't know that!


Now back to radiation which applies spin to a p.

* No it doesn't - cite a reference.

Well look at how salvage yards sort out metals into different
enclosures.
They apply a displacement current to a conveyor where each piece of
metal is elevated with spin such that it lands in the appropriate
enclosure which is dependent on the resistivity of the metal elevated.
This method of elevating scrap for recovery has been used for years
and it is the same action that is applied to particles for radiation.
Why would you need a citation for a practice that is well known and in
use? On top of that a citation is only an instrument to poin out who
and where the statement was made. This has its use for those who
easily believe what they see in print and thus save them from effort.



*Nowarticle where as
with a crt no spin is applied as it is heat that separates the resting
particle

* ... separates it from what?

Now you are being silly. first the particle was resting. Then heat was
applied to its butt.
Now think about it. What fields are in place to take control of the
free particle that now has a increase in its potential energy?


*Now earlier you refered to a electrostatic field that
according to what you stated did not have a border and surely you know
that just can't be unless it is in equilibrium which requires a closed
circuit.

* Fields in unbounded space tend to be unbounded. *The fields around a
dipole are bounded by the surface of the dipole, which is the boundary
condition used by NEC, and usually in practice by the earth.

Tend, tend. You mean you don't know? NEC is per the laws of Maxwell.
Equilibrium is a must as is the encirclement of a electrostatic field
just like a quad or loop antenna. Since the programmer did not follow
Maxwell in its entirety and frankly did many modifications such that
it would solve planar radiators, who knows what license the
programmers took to get the job done where it could foolmost of the
people most of the time?




For this to come to fruition you go back to the boundary laws where
the arbitrary border is one that is closed i.e. in equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in terms of normal physics and cite a reference.
Hmm I thought I had done that before!



*Now
cast your mind back to the Gauss extension where radiators and
particles lie in a closed static field. Now you should see that
equilibrium must reign for a closed static field. Now you blithely
mentioned an electrostatic field with nary a mention as to how it is
formed and how it fits into the whole picture.

* Recent discussion has been about the electric field produced by the
voltage that appears between the ends of a dipole - that's what I was
writing about, and so were you. *How can you state 'with nary a mention as
to how it is formed'?

I have concentrated on radiator that were in equilibrium and of a
closed circuit called a tank circuit
.. You are mixing things up. I explained for somebody else what a
charge does for a radiator that is NOT in equilibrium because others
were unable to describe it adequately.


Why? Because the books do not provide an unbroken trail that fully
describes radiation
( books admit that) as I have done where everything dove tails into
the existing laws of the Universe.



* Kraus provides a trail that's as unbroken as can be comprehended by most
engineers. *Physicists may wish to take it further but there's no evidence
of physicists in this newsgroup.

No Krauss did no such thing. He expanded a yagi style radiator where
the elements ere made of loops. All he did was to connect them into a
continuous conductor. When experimenting with this he saw evidence
that field did not follow the axis of the windings
( rotation of the earth again) so he adjusted the pitch of the
windings to obtain a satisfactory pattern. He did not improve on the
existing knowledge of radiators as his radiators were not in
equilibrium and thus strayed from Maxwell.


*And then I gave you a bonus with
respect to the weak field that Einstein searched for in vain. Einstein
looked at the package presented by the Big Bag but omitted to keep
that which it was wrapped into.

* Is the universe enclosed in a Big Bag?

If you wish to put it into a three dimensional border be my guest. It
would be interesting to know what your starting point is bearing in
mind your position of a huge surrounding void.


*That was the arbitrary boundary around
which were forces or vectors that were equal and opposite when a
smallest of smallest of particles edged out towards the border. Yes it
was of a weak force but for all of that it broke the equilibrium
boundary as the forces at that point was not now equal. The breakage
was one where the opposing forces were offset to each other thus
providing a torque force that provided spin. Now we come to our own
Earth encased in a arbitrary border and outside the border we have the
same conditions of equilibrium that must equal the forces of the Big
Bang which means the outside has two vectors, gravity vector which is
straight and a vector denoting spin i.e. rotation of the Earth. On the
other side of the border you again have two vectors *a straight vector
and that curly one you don't like me to call eddy current.

* Call it what you wish. *Capitalising the word within a sentence, as you
did before, is usually reserved for phenomena named after the people who
discovered them - but that's an engineer thing.

Big deal


Yup. Everything falls together nicely thank you, when you study
radiation from first principles instead of binding yourself to books
that readily admit to not understanding the radiation process.

* If you believe so fervently in your own version of all this then why don't
you submit it to peer review at sci.physics or sci.physics.research? *It's
rather unfair to expose this only to an amateur radio newsgroup when what
you are doing is apparently re-writing physics in such a major way. *Those
newsgroups would be more appropriate, considering the depth to which you are
going (i.e. well beyond amateur radio) - wouldn't you agree.

Not really, espeilly if the groups has the same stature as this one.


*Now

this is not being arrogant when one has applied all principles

* My dictionary defines 'arrogant' as: 'having or showing an exaggerated
opinion of one's own importance , merit, ability, etc.' from the Latin
'arrogare': 'to claim as one's own'. *Your re-writing of physics conforms to
this definition precisely.

So it is arrogant to do things for your self from first principles to
confirm whether printed matter is correct or not? Why would anybody
broaden the outlook of others work without determining that its
foundations was of rock or sand? Trust but verify seems very apt here.



*but I
do think it is arrogant of you and others to asasinate the character
of "S" purely because of his english and spelling and not to help one
that wants to learn.

* He is showing no inclination of wanting to learn - he asks a question, and
then when answered responds with non-physical contradiction. *His treatement
here is a direct consequence of that behaviour, like yours.

Could be but he is not alone. He is surrounded by pseudo experts in
all fields who can prove nothing for themselves and relying on the
printed matter of others. Might just as well close the doors of a
library for a year to determine which book came out on top. Why on
earth would somebody turn him away from hydrolics when it like
electric current has laminar flow



Just think about it all. I have shown how a particle moves in space in
a straight line trajectory such that the particle maintains a straight
line without the parabolic force of gravity driving it down to the
Earth. Go back to your books and show just how the electrostatic field
came about and what was the borders that it was contained in
Art
via applied spin and where gravity

* As I say, you should present your theory to sci.physics and
sci.physics.research if you have any interest in checking whether it is
correct, and not limit its exposure to this group. *Do let us know when you
have posted there.

No, that is not the choice I have made. I decided to merge a paper
aproach with that of a patent request . You have read one patent
request and you have to wait for the PTO to print out the concluding
application. I am sharing it with industry and not the boneheads
who bunch themselves into secret rooms away from those outside who
cannot possibly provide anything of interest. They have the common
interest that if it doesn't come from them..........!!!!!! Pretty much
the same as this group. We shall see
Art




Chris