"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 2 Mar, 08:30, (Rick) wrote:
Congratulations Art, you are now in my killfile.
Don't bother responding - I won't see your posts anymore.

There's enough negativity in the world, I don't need it in an antenna
newsgroup. Man oh Man, anyone who slams Roy.......

73 forever,

Rick K2XT

Does anybody disagree or agree for that matter that the expansion of
Gaussian static law to electro magnetic law is correct or in error,

it is in error, by definition. if you want a 'Gaussian' law that is
something other than as it is written, then write your own law, make some
predictions not covered by the existing maxwell's equations, and let the
papers get accepted by a peer reviewed journal. anything less than that and
all you are doing is blowing smoke.

Anybody. Why the reluctance to talk about the basics of radiation?
There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis. It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage. The basic laws of the
masters which is the under pinnings of NEC are specific and to the
point. It is the programer that is introducing the errors and he is
the checker of his own work. If the works of the masters reveal
something new when the formular is used who do we shoot, the
programmer, the masters or wait for somebody else to do some work and
add it to the program based on empirical work?

i do believe if you read all the literature that has been written using
results of NEC and the experimental results it has been compared to you will
find that it is not the programmer checking himself, the program has been
tested many, many different ways over lots of years now.

Well it appears that for the present all choose to ignore it because
lack of knoweledge is not hurting anybody.
Shame oh shame
Art XG

On 6 Mar, 14:14, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 2 Mar, 08:30, (Rick) wrote:
Congratulations Art, you are now in my killfile.
Don't bother responding - I won't see your posts anymore.

There's enough negativity in the world, I don't need it in an antenna
newsgroup. Man oh Man, anyone who slams Roy.......

73 forever,

Rick K2XT

Does anybody disagree or agree for that matter that the expansion of
Gaussian static law to electro magnetic law is correct or in error,

it is in error, by definition. if you want a 'Gaussian' law that is
something other than as it is written, then write your own law, make some
predictions not covered by the existing maxwell's equations, and let the
papers get accepted by a peer reviewed journal. anything less than that and
all you are doing is blowing smoke.

Anybody. Why the reluctance to talk about the basics of radiation?
There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis. It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage. The basic laws of the
masters which is the under pinnings of NEC are specific and to the
point. It is the programer that is introducing the errors and he is
the checker of his own work. If the works of the masters reveal
something new when the formular is used who do we shoot, the
programmer, the masters or wait for somebody else to do some work and
add it to the program based on empirical work?

i do believe if you read all the literature that has been written using
results of NEC and the experimental results it has been compared to you will
find that it is not the programmer checking himself, the program has been
tested many, many different ways over lots of years now.



Well it appears that for the present all choose to ignore it because
lack of knoweledge is not hurting anybody.
Shame oh shame
Art XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Be patient Dave, Gene Fuller states in another thread that he has all
the answers and aparently is going to point out some writing that are
100 years old that apparently is going to tear me to bits. I do
believe that the answers I seek are now going to be made available.
Gene has three degrees is physics so he is not to be taken lightly. I
am looking forward to the upcoming education so I can see where I went
wrong. Gene is the first person to step forward with all the written
facts available to me.
Perhaps others will learn something also. Follow down and read what he
had to say.
Art

art wrote:


Be patient Dave, Gene Fuller states in another thread that he has all
the answers and aparently is going to point out some writing that are
100 years old that apparently is going to tear me to bits. I do
believe that the answers I seek are now going to be made available.
Gene has three degrees is physics so he is not to be taken lightly. I
am looking forward to the upcoming education so I can see where I went
wrong. Gene is the first person to step forward with all the written
facts available to me.
Perhaps others will learn something also. Follow down and read what he
had to say.
Art


Art,

You apparently are going to need a lot of patience. I have explained the
relationship of Gaussian "statics" to full electromagnetic theory at
least three times. I am sorry if you did not comprehend.

I cannot explain "Unwin's Law", and I will make no attempt to do so.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene, W4SZ wrote:
"You apparently are going to need a lot of patience."

Patience is a virtue that carries a lot of wait.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 7 Mar, 16:36, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Gene, W4SZ wrote:

"You apparently are going to need a lot of patience."

Patience is a virtue that carries a lot of wait.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, why is it you get away with stating the truth and it is I
that get stoned? Gentlemen read posting number three by Richard and
rethink your positions
Art

Art wrote:
"Richard, why is it you get away with stating the truth and I get
stoned?"

The status quo is comfortable. You are the one who would shake things
up.

I think we will always need a patent office but the inventor will need
to promote his own work, unless the novelty obviously fills a desperate
need.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 9 Mar, 08:17, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"Richard, why is it you get away with stating the truth and I get
stoned?"

The status quo is comfortable. You are the one who would shake things
up.

I think we will always need a patent office but the inventor will need
to promote his own work, unless the novelty obviously fills a desperate
need.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Oh so true, that has been the pattern taken by humans for eons
Anybody who has obtained a patent knows that after it becomes accepted
it is belittled as nothing or everybody knew that before.
It has been a story of my life but none have the inpact that this does
for science.
Art

On 6 Mar, 20:17, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

Be patient Dave, Gene Fuller states in another thread that he has all
the answers and aparently is going to point out some writing that are
100 years old that apparently is going to tear me to bits. I do
believe that the answers I seek are now going to be made available.
Gene has three degrees is physics so he is not to be taken lightly. I
am looking forward to the upcoming education so I can see where I went
wrong. Gene is the first person to step forward with all the written
facts available to me.
Perhaps others will learn something also. Follow down and read what he
had to say.
Art

Art,

You apparently are going to need a lot of patience. I have explained the
relationship of Gaussian "statics" to full electromagnetic theory at
least three times. I am sorry if you did not comprehend.

I cannot explain "Unwin's Law", and I will make no attempt to do so.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene you keep on dogging the issue. We all know or at least most know
of Gaussian law of Electrostatics. To my knoweledge tho you seem to
have a book that expounds on it, Gauss never expanded his law of
electrostatics to include electromagnetics. Every time you want to
have a knock on me it seems you are not even aware of what I am
claiming using the thread just for auguements sake. Now once and for
all please show your hand and educate me where and how Gaussian law of
statics was expanded.
Frankly I need your knoweledge expanded on this thread since all have
stated contrary to you that there is no connection between statics and
electro magnetics when refuting my claim of how it was connected
together with my rational on which I based my patent application on.
So Gene regardless of your three degrees you are on the wrong side of
the majority on this and then the wierdest thing was you maintain the
connection was made over a hundred years ago which begins a triangular
augument where you are not with the majority or with me but all on
your own with this assertion you have made of Gaussian prior
knoweledge.
You have made a claim in contradiction to all, spit it out and state
where it is written, so the world can catch up with you and your third
degree of learning. Oh and in addition show allof us an example of how
static law is expanded to produce antenna arrays that are in
equilibrium and resonant and then we can all carry you off on our
shoulders for putting this long winded discussion to rest.
Art

art wrote:


Gene you keep on dogging the issue.


Art,

Arf, Arf, Arf. How's that for dogging?

I have explained the issue several times, and your responses have
completely ignored the explanation. I am not going to continue to waste
my time if you are not even interested.


73,
Gene
W4SZ

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:37:38 GMT, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

Gene you keep on dogging the issue.

Arf, Arf, Arf. How's that for dogging?

I have explained the issue several times, and your responses have
completely ignored the explanation. I am not going to continue to waste
my time if you are not even interested.

It's simply a spelling error:

Gauze!
As in something you'd drap over an observer to obscure the clarity of focus.

Unlikely to happen here, since vetting is applied in rraa.

*plonked* , along with all that fractal bu11$h1t.

Jonesy