On 5 Mar, 12:56, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

[snip]

Nobody but nobody has invalidated my expansion of the law of statics.
Nobody.Didn't the same thing happen to all the masters at one time or
another.
Art

Art,

You may have missed my earlier message, or perhaps it was not clear. I
will try again.

Gauss' Law is one of the four standard Maxwell Equations. Therefore,
statics has already been expanded to encompass all of classical
electromagnetism, a long time ago.

You may have invented a novel antenna configuration, but you did not
"invent" the extension of Gauss' Law to HF and antennas. There is
nothing to validate or invalidate.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene,
last time you wrote to me you said you were dumber than a rock and I
took you at your word. I just read your last paragraph and I do not
understand a bit of it other than a collection of words. I have not
"invented" anything I have discovered something! "Nothing to validate
or invalidate?" Sorry but I now echo Roys normal statement Is it
refering to invention, discovery or the companionship of a rock?. Odd
thing is you are adressing it to me., What do you want from me or are
you reading from the bible or something such that you are soothed by
the echo of your speech? Shall we just say it is not all clear as you
surmised. I do admit to the idea that all is not known about antennas,
is that what this is all about? On top of all that no
one has faulted my analysis with authority so whats the beef? Why are
you throwing rocks?
Art

art wrote:


Gene,
last time you wrote to me you said you were dumber than a rock and I
took you at your word. I just read your last paragraph and I do not
understand a bit of it other than a collection of words. I have not
"invented" anything I have discovered something! "Nothing to validate
or invalidate?" Sorry but I now echo Roys normal statement Is it
refering to invention, discovery or the companionship of a rock?. Odd
thing is you are adressing it to me., What do you want from me or are
you reading from the bible or something such that you are soothed by
the echo of your speech? Shall we just say it is not all clear as you
surmised. I do admit to the idea that all is not known about antennas,
is that what this is all about? On top of all that no
one has faulted my analysis with authority so whats the beef? Why are
you throwing rocks?
Art


Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On 5 Mar, 14:50, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

Gene,
last time you wrote to me you said you were dumber than a rock and I
took you at your word. I just read your last paragraph and I do not
understand a bit of it other than a collection of words. I have not
"invented" anything I have discovered something! "Nothing to validate
or invalidate?" Sorry but I now echo Roys normal statement Is it
refering to invention, discovery or the companionship of a rock?. Odd
thing is you are adressing it to me., What do you want from me or are
you reading from the bible or something such that you are soothed by
the echo of your speech? Shall we just say it is not all clear as you
surmised. I do admit to the idea that all is not known about antennas,
is that what this is all about? On top of all that no
one has faulted my analysis with authority so whats the beef? Why are
you throwing rocks?
Art

Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pray tell what I have discovered and what antenna program experience
are you drawing upon with respect to your statements. Now to the term
"validated". What does validated mean, is it a collective term? If so
what comprised as a group the term collective? And what in factwere
they validating and how. When and where would help to.
And you seem to be a group of one who recognises what discovery I have
found that it was known about years ago. So why not spit it out and
help out the readers so all know what you are disputing. What I have
uttered has not previously known/understood,even by the maestro Roy
because it is not in any book, and has not been utelised by anybody to
the best of my knoweledge. But you seem to have a handle on the whole
things so with steps of knowelege and logic give all of us the benefit
of your insight so I may advance my case. Again what's your beaf?
Art

On 5 Mar, 14:50, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

Gene,
last time you wrote to me you said you were dumber than a rock and I
took you at your word. I just read your last paragraph and I do not
understand a bit of it other than a collection of words. I have not
"invented" anything I have discovered something! "Nothing to validate
or invalidate?" Sorry but I now echo Roys normal statement Is it
refering to invention, discovery or the companionship of a rock?. Odd
thing is you are adressing it to me., What do you want from me or are
you reading from the bible or something such that you are soothed by
the echo of your speech? Shall we just say it is not all clear as you
surmised. I do admit to the idea that all is not known about antennas,
is that what this is all about? On top of all that no
one has faulted my analysis with authority so whats the beef? Why are
you throwing rocks?
Art

Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

What, where, when and where is it written?
What, where, when and where is it written?
Explain yourself





73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

art wrote:
On 5 Mar, 14:50, Gene Fuller wrote:

Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

What, where, when and where is it written?
What, where, when and where is it written?
Explain yourself




73,
Gene
W4SZ

Art,

Pick up any book that includes a discussion of Maxwell's Equations. One
of the equations will be something like:

div D = rho

The common expression of Gauss' Law is something like:

div E = rho / epsilon

By definition:

D = E * epsilon

Therefore Gauss' Law is already included in all radiation and all
antennas. You can perform any amount of mathematical manipulation you
wish, including expressing these equations in integral rather than
differential form. The integral form is commonly used when discussing
the Gaussian "pillbox" in electrostatics. However, the physical
conditions remain the same.

You have stated on many occasions that you understand this sort of
vector manipulation, e.g., you throw curls around freely, so no further
explanation should be necessary.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On 5 Mar, 16:35, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
On 5 Mar, 14:50, Gene Fuller wrote:
Art,

Let me put it in even simpler terms.

What you have "discovered" has been well known for over 100 years. Your
"discovery" was validated before any of us was born.

What, where, when and where is it written?
What, where, when and where is it written?
Explain yourself

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Art,

Pick up any book that includes a discussion of Maxwell's Equations. One
of the equations will be something like:

div D = rho

The common expression of Gauss' Law is something like:

div E = rho / epsilon

By definition:

D = E * epsilon

Therefore Gauss' Law is already included in all radiation and all
antennas.

Yes the law is every where. What am I suppose to be claiming so that
we can get on subject. I don't want to be bombarded with irrelavent
facts.



You can perform any amount of mathematical manipulation you
wish, including expressing these equations in integral rather than
differential form. The integral form is commonly used when discussing
the Gaussian "pillbox" in electrostatics.

I agree and they are correct as far as they have ventured


However, the physical
conditions remain the same.
yes when talking about electrostatics


You have stated on many occasions that you understand this sort of
vector manipulation, This sort?

So am I to assume that you have found a reference to curl by Gauss
specifying its use with respect to electro magnetic fields? Where is
it

So am I to assume that Gauss extended his law on statics to include
electro magnetic fields? Where is that written?

Did he also supply the rational used to arrive at that equation? where
is it written?

e.g., you throw curls around freely, so no further
explanation should be necessary.

You explain what you mean by freely


I don't throw curl around freely but I don't ignor its presence either

where did I throw curl around freely where it wasn't warrented and why
was it not warranted?

Gene you are showing that you are out of your depth, all hand waving
but no facts. The above could prove me wrong if you have the facts.I
have specifically asked for your facts at each point. If you have them
by all means supply them so we can all applaud your hand at
knoweledge.

Art


73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -