On 8 Mar 2007 11:10:45 -0800, "art" wrote:

basically nothing

Hi Art,

If you cannot explain why your work fails at the bench, I'm afraid you
are not going to find anyone to read theories with equal flaws.

Let's look at another difficult question:

You write at your web page that you have 3 elements with coordinates:
#1
-1.8421 3.0697 83.6493 -25.311 25.3112 82.7236

#2
-1.7146 7.636 79.6994 -15.45145 37.578 79.6994

#3
4.3792 2.528931 81.4985 3.9279 23.645 83.6096

You (not anyone else) show two of these as being orthogonal to the X
axis. A simple review of the numbers does not requi
1. A text book;
2. NEC;
3. A computer;
4. A new theory
to show that none of them are.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:18:23 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

#1
-1.8421 3.0697 83.6493 -25.311 25.3112 82.7236

Hi Art,

Anticipating you can't answer the last one about mechanical
orientation, let's examine your proficiency in using a computor with
this one element which in your words displays:
"Drive impedance of Element #1 equals
30.7 + j 0.1 ohms,
SWR = 1.01"

If we skip the modeling, once again simple bench work, not:
1. A text book;
2. NEC;
3. A computer;
4. A new theory
would reveal a SWR of 1.01 for a drive Z of 31 Ohms is a most curious
departure from convention - or did Gauss mandate a 31 Ohm system (you
certainly don't put this into your words).

The next error in light of this is (your words):
"Drive impedance of Element #2 equals
1121 + j 1554 ohms,
SWR = 3.65"

3.65:1 really? In the same 31 Ohm system? A new one for each
element? We need only look at the third example with nearly the same
mismatch, but a wildly different drive impedance to wonder from your
words that:
"Drive impedance of Element #3 equals
16.2 - j 22.4 ohms,
SWR = 3.64"

3.64:1 really? In what system are all these elements residing?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mar 8, 11:37 am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:18:23 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote

As I see it there are three items in question,(1) Gauss's law (2) Nec
programs
(3)Gaussian arrays. Demolish the claim for the addition of time to
Gauss's law and the remaining questions fall away.
Therefore the question is, can Gauss's law be altered to accommodate
the addition of time in relation to antenna's?.

Regards Derek

On 10 Mar 2007 03:51:21 -0800, "bluey" wrote:

Therefore the question is, can Gauss's law be altered to accommodate
the addition of time in relation to antenna's?.

Hi Derek,

Actually, that question has to be parsed for Art's sake for
immortality. Gauss's laws were altered to accommodate the addition of
time.

Gauss didn't do it, so Art is smarter than Gauss (because Gauss is
dead).

Maxwell took Gauss's work (and some dead Brit's) and did it, but he
didn't think of it in relation to antennas (there were none). So Art
is smarter than Maxwell (because Maxwell and some Brit are dead).

Marconi took Maxwell's addition of time to Gauss's (and some dead
Brit's) work and put it to antennas, but he didn't write a book about
it. So Art is smarter than Marconi (because Marconi is dead).

Bellini and Tosi took Marconi's work derived from Maxwell (and some
dead Brit) and Gauss's and did it, and wrote a book about it. Art can
ignore that because it is in an American book. So Art is smarter than
Bellini and Tosi (because, they too are dead).

He still has a lot more to rush into the grave. He is beginning to
stack them like cord wood. Did you bring your own head stone?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
So Art is smarter than Maxwell (because Maxwell and some Brit are
dead).

James Clerk Maxwell is buried not far from here. Most of the county gets
its electric power from Maxwell turning in his grave - so please,
everybody, keep those postings coming.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK