On May 23, 4:49*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 23, 6:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On May 23, 4:34*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 22, 6:07 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably
trying
to do the new.
The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis
the
teachers adopt to teaching.
S*
antennas do not have to be grounded.

"A wire that runs from the motor to the machine's frame to absorb stray
electric charge. Chassis ground is used when it is not possible to connect a
grounding conductor into the earth. "

" how are antennas on satellites
grounded??

To chassis. Your mobile phone also.

*do satellites become massive positive charges in space as
they keep shooting off electrons...

They mainly transmit. So chassis is enough. Chassis must has the large area
to dissipate/absorb the electrons from space.

again, this is going no where,

when you have read another hundred years of science and are ready to
believe what has been well proven over that time period maybe we can
have a conversation.

Take a glance at:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
And tell us what is your opinion on Maxwell's model of the aether..

S*

Hi Mister S
Thank you for supplying reference for the article in the phylisophical
journal. Most of it is beyond my interlect
but a quick review show that the tenents of his explanation
are based first on the requirement of equilibrium
That particles is the center of discussion
That vortices are present to provide a displacement force
And the connection between electrostatic and light
*functions. Nowhere do I see reference to Gauss law of statics and the
progression to a dynamic field which makes
his paper some what astounding for him to come up with this paper
without these clues that have been hidden for so long. I intend to get
a print out of all four portions of this paper in the hope I can
cherry pick some portions that I can understand from the paper. As
always one of the most important things are the responses from his
peers which
usually are accompanied by science analysis rather than relyinging on
base intuitions without supporting facts from the ham community.
Thanks again
Art

much is beyond your intellect... *however you should note that gauss's
law wasn't published until about 6 years after that article, so it
would be surprising if it was referenced. *that article is also well
before maxwell had published his works that contain his completed set
of equations describing electromagnetic fields... so it is not
surprising that some of what is in there was undoubtedly incorrect
guesses and suppositions based on earlier observations.

I have not printed the article as yet and I admit that I had not noted
the earlier publication date. I thought the publication was just one
year old.
I believe it to be interesting enough to get a print out but it will
be difficult to get a full list of comments
which usually as interesting as the article itself.