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