On Jan 9, 3:53*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Jan 9, 1:38 pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jan 9, 11:27 am, Dave wrote:

On Jan 9, 4:19 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

snip handwaving

when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than
Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil.

O.K look at things another way where the given theory interlocks with
even more branches of accepted science.

When you apply Maxwells equations to an array it can only supply
radiation from forces that are supplied. If all is not supplied ie the
array is not in equilibrium then it accounts for only what is
applicable.
A yagi is not in equilibrium so Maxwell can only supply radiation
evident by other laws or another arrangement that the programmer has
provided, which will be in the order of something less than 100%
If the result is 100% accountability translated into 100% efficiency
then the array provided conformed to a Maxwell arrangement in
equilibrium
OR the programmer provided methods for the program to reorganised the
array to conform with Maxwells equations which requires equilibrium.
Thus Maxwell declares the difference between equilibrium
and non equilibrium. The final test in terms of physics and astromoney
and the laws of Newton is that the vectors of radiation must be equal
to opposing vectors such that equilibrium is retained. Maxwell does
this by supplying two vectors for radiation which is balanced by
gravity and the rotation of the Earth which are accepted external
influencies
with reference to the Solar system. These same two vectors are
reflected thru a series of interchanges per Newtons law where it
inevitably it finishes up with the big bang where equilibrium is
broken by the introduction of the same two vectors, one straight and
one with spin content which is axial or otherwise ala, helical in
content.
It is the same two vectors which all the Universe is compared to as a
datum level that portrays the difference between equilibrium and the
breakage of equilibrium. This can be stated because without breakage
or change from equilibrium movement cannot occur and the solar system
cannot exist. This was visualised by Einstein with out the success of
deducing the initial vectors such that he turned to the science of
Relativity in the hope they would then be exposed before he went to
his death.
Regards
Art

Another aproach to radiation
Using a common dipole we have two variables,length and cross sectional
area.
Mathematically we can reduce length to a minimum thickness where by
the crosd sectional area must increase a given amount to retain
equilibrium. This clearly shows that the provider or receiver of
communication can be in the form of a flat plate conductor or same
that is perforated.
Remember that at no time have I invoked Gausss field when made dynamic
which both you and I agree to and others do not. Which forces
interlocking of physics proof from other accepted physical facts.
proof of interlocking as I have supplied.
Art

Hi Art,

If I read this correctly you are saying that as a dipole antenna is reduced
in length relative to a given frequency, it must be increased in thickness
until a point is reached where you are left with two closely spaced parallel
plates which are the equivalent of the dipole.

Well actually I was infering that for minimum thicness of the plate
",area" must be increased. However if I had thought a bit more ,your
explanation of two close spaced plates is a better description since
there are two entities there as with a water chamber separated by a
flexible gasket. Thus we have an application where a water analogy can
be used for energy transfer ie. Volume can change from one side to the
other by the deflection of the membrane yet the two entities still
stay separate. Neat.






The plates need not be solid, so a perforated or mesh surface will do. You
have mentioned how to form mesh structures a few times, so I assume that
this is what you are using.

Yes that sums it up.


Fat dipoles are inherently broadband, so such an antenna will be compact,
efficient, broadband and cheap if constructed from mesh.

Yes,I was illustrating the use of mathematics to show that two
entities were actually the same because mathematics appeared to be the
choice of proof. Nothing more.


Sounds like a reasonable experiment, but I don't think it needs any new
maths to describe how it works. The existing theories already back you up..
I fully understand that, but when the group denied existing physics in
favor of requesting a different proof perhaps a new technology then I
was lost for words. So when DR Davis of MIT came along and confirmed
what I stated the group attacked him also. We never got beyond the
point of legality of adding a time varient to Gauss's law such that
Maxwells equations could be applied. Unfortunately this also presented
the presence of particles albiet static particles so interpretations
of the double split experiment got expanded beyond the spectrum of
light of which there is no proof. Thus an opening for
insults without explanation required A boon to those uneducated in the
field
Art




Cheers

Mike G0ULI