On Dec 12, 4:00*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:04*pm, joe wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:

Think about it Joe
If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless.

It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets
30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining
efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless
result.

A meaningful *measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may
relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless.

What is your equation?

Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts
perfection
and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second
portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to
perfection.

OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those
portions and where does L/C fit?

Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of

that which creates losses.
Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1
which states zero losses, an ideal situation.

Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what
you say it is just some term out of nowhere.

Thus we can say the losses involved equals
root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L
and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and
therefore not part of the vectors that create
acceleration of charge.

How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is
out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy
with your position?

* Remember for legitimacy all formulae must

equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now
if you are unaware where root L/C
appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books
to fill that gap.

The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your
position, not some book.

Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ *xg

Tom. I don't trust you because of your prior posts but I am following
the norm where homework is for copying from the screen before
dismissal. As far as research goes their are many discussions
available that give support to my position so you have an avenue
to research for yourself without denial of mine.
If what you say is true regarding L and C then there is indeed a
problem. Provide a situation
where both inductors and capacitance do not provide losses and is
instrumental in creating propagation and I don't mind you providing an
excerpt from a book as to what is understood
as to how the losses incurred are part and parcel of the resultant
forces. Why not quote a formula on efficiency where the inefficiency
is not applied as a simple number but instead supplies the constituent
values that make up that number. I don't mind you quoting from the
books the same as I am doing. Think about it Tom, a capacitor
conserves energy and you know that an inductor provides a magnetic
field
by retaining half of what was supplied, Thus no amount of elements can
account for the disposition of all the power supplied.
Please note that I am not running away while missiles are being
thrown. I am stubborn ,and I am staying, and will respond, and I
certainly will not run away! I do thank you in your pursuit but in the
absence of believing me your answers will come from researching what I
state.
Why not start in stating what you do believe about my research ?
Gauss and Maxwell
Particles not waves
The actions of being diamagnetic
Levitation
Surface flow of current external to the radiator
and so on IN ORDER *from my given description.
I need to see what base you are operating from
and what you do accept so I can build upon it.
I will stay with you. If you don't care about what I propose then take
leave of the thread because it lacks importance to you.
Best regards
Art
Regard
Art

great, keep spewing more technobafflegab, the wx is bad here and i
could use a few good laughs!

i would like to see you get your mit buddy back here again, i think he
split when he saw how loony your theory really was and when you didn't
really understand his explanation of Gauss and Maxwell... which as i
have pointed out, with references, already are dynamic and result in
wave propagation not magical levitating diamagnetic solar neutrinos
flying off your pickup stick patented antenna.