Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant ( parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant ( parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie

Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present
we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch
except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few
if any
is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the
present state
of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information
in any art.
When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic
for the next patent application which is what is called progress
because it
was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people
decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers
decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a
resume,
just like monday morning quarterbacks
Art

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant ( parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present
we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch
except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few
if any
is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the
present state
of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information
in any art.
When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic
for the next patent application which is what is called progress
because it
was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people
decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers
decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a
resume,
just like monday morning quarterbacks
Art

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant (
parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how
one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold
there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the
relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie


Patents are almost useless unless you actually build something. Basically
patents protect ideas and I know a guy who use to do hundreds of applictions
on just ideas. It is not the purpose of a patent to establish that an idea
is workable. It just establishes it as "your idea" Besides I thought we were
talking about antennas, not the value of patents.

Jimmie.

I responded to another person who posted his thoughts about patents
on this very same thread!
Art


Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present
we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch
except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few
if any
is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the
present state
of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information
in any art.
When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic
for the next patent application which is what is called progress
because it
was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people
decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers
decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a
resume,
just like monday morning quarterbacks
Art

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant (
parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how
one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold
there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the
relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie


Patents are almost useless unless you actually build something. Basically
patents protect ideas and I know a guy who use to do hundreds of applictions
on just ideas. It is not the purpose of a patent to establish that an idea
is workable. It just establishes it as "your idea" Besides I thought we were
talking about antennas, not the value of patents.

Jimmie.

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
I responded to another person who posted his thoughts about patents
on this very same thread!
Art


Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present
we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch
except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few
if any
is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the
present state
of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information
in any art.
When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic
for the next patent application which is what is called progress
because it
was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people
decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers
decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a
resume,
just like monday morning quarterbacks
Art

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand
the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is
nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we
have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't
shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant (
parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three
dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how
one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold
there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the
relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you
and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a
professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie


Patents are almost useless unless you actually build something. Basically
patents protect ideas and I know a guy who use to do hundreds of
applictions
on just ideas. It is not the purpose of a patent to establish that an
idea
is workable. It just establishes it as "your idea" Besides I thought we
were
talking about antennas, not the value of patents.

Jimmie.


So, lets get back to antennas, I really want to see your proofs of
mathematical a mistake the masters made.
Cant wait?

Sincerely Jimmie.

Jimmie D wrote:

...
In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie



Geesh! Something we finally stand in total agreement with.

However, like most things in science, usually what we are hunting is
first "discovered" in a "practical" form, then the math is "found" to
explain, describe, and "predict" it and its "properties" ... such has
always been mankinds' lot--or, thanks for those goofy guys in their
basements with their goofy ideas ...

Still, an excellent and valid statement.

Warmest regards,
JS

Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
this was occurring when the subject has been studied to death over the
years
It was when I reviewed past works of the masters I came across this
error
and you must realise that in the old days decades passed before it was
studied by others. George Green like others such as Gauss had a niche
in mathematics a lot of which came from non uniform studies such that
later reiterations of what they had deduced was shaken around and
rehashed
after death such that if an error was introduced there were few who
could
refute it. Let's face it, if it is seen in a book in present day how
many would
be alert or foolhardy enough to refute it without changing context,
the naysayers
would immediatly shout, not pounce, from their lazy boys knowing full
well it
is easier to ridicule than to think things out for themselves.
Have you ever heard a monday morning quarterback prophesising two days
before the match and repeating it again on monday morning?
Art



John Smith I wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...
In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie



Geesh! Something we finally stand in total agreement with.

However, like most things in science, usually what we are hunting is
first "discovered" in a "practical" form, then the math is "found" to
explain, describe, and "predict" it and its "properties" ... such has
always been mankinds' lot--or, thanks for those goofy guys in their
basements with their goofy ideas ...

Still, an excellent and valid statement.

Warmest regards,
JS

art wrote:
Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
this was occurring when the subject has been studied to death over the
years
It was when I reviewed past works of the masters I came across this
error
and you must realise that in the old days decades passed before it was
studied by others. George Green like others such as Gauss had a niche
in mathematics a lot of which came from non uniform studies such that
later reiterations of what they had deduced was shaken around and
rehashed
after death such that if an error was introduced there were few who
could
refute it. Let's face it, if it is seen in a book in present day how
many would
be alert or foolhardy enough to refute it without changing context,
the naysayers
would immediatly shout, not pounce, from their lazy boys knowing full
well it
is easier to ridicule than to think things out for themselves.
Have you ever heard a monday morning quarterback prophesising two days
before the match and repeating it again on monday morning?
Art


Art:

We may be two of the three blind men who went to see the elephant.

I know for a fact the spinning of the earth (time) has no place it our
equation on radio frequency vibrations. However, I do accept the
possibility of a "universal time frame" which does--but, someone SHOW it
to me first!--universal time frame.

I do accept that the "mysterious 377 ohms" seems to "work" in our
equations. However, I do NOT believe it is "real", but I do believe it
is acting as a "mysterious placeholder" for something unknown, unseen
and undiscovered by us ... and, I do not know what this is.

So, in the end, I am viewed as a kook--just like you. But, with what
you have described, it only leaves me with me with more questions--at
least at the present time ... I am patient, perhaps one day you find the
right words and I will have a revelation ...

Regards,
JS

On 23 Jan, 18:54, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:
Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
snip
We may be two of the three blind men who went to see the elephant.

I know for a fact the spinning of the earth (time) has no place it our
equation on radio frequency vibrations.


Why would you say that? Lets look at a rain drop accellerating towards
ground
until it comes to a sudden stop. Now look at this senario in terms of
the big picture
and we note that relatively speaking the droplet does not follow a
straight line relative
to a particular point on the face on the earth because of the earths
rotation.
So with the accellaration towards earth by gravity is a relative change
in time
it needs an accompanaying vector to qualify as curl which is supplied
by the
earths rotation. Thus I would contend that a droplet in free fall is
statically loaded
and provided with a time varying change at the same time. Thus the
noise I heard
with the antenna inside the car while in the rain forest was actually
something that
was transmitted as opposed to a static discharge on impact!. If you
read about space
transmissions you will note that they always place the word static
within " "..
Why do you think they do that? An answer to that would be very
interesting in
light of what I infere early in this post would it not?
Art


However, I do accept the
possibility of a "universal time frame" which does--but, someone SHOW it
to me first!--universal time frame.

I do accept that the "mysterious 377 ohms" seems to "work" in our
equations. However, I do NOT believe it is "real", but I do believe it
is acting as a "mysterious placeholder" for something unknown, unseen
and undiscovered by us ... and, I do not know what this is.

Well the 377 represents ether the impedance in space or ether
the relative impedance in space. Ether way it works out O.K. and the
math
is made to prove it afrter the fact. it is ether that or something else
Art

So, in the end, I am viewed as a kook--just like you.
I have a clone?


But, with what
you have described, it only leaves me with me with more questions--at
least at the present time ... I am patient, perhaps one day you find the
right words and I will have a revelation ...
Did you try changing the angle of a vertical dipole
to obtain some observables?
How can you sleep?
Art

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -