Gaussian statics law
 

...

When a field is traveling at/near the speed of light it has mass(acts
as a particle) slower and it is a wave. EM lives on the hairy edge of
both worlds. vAt least thats what my Phd girlfriend told me once. Who
knows though, she was pretty weird.

JIMMIE

Yes. Just thinking about this one aspect can keep me up for hours from
a restful sleep ... :(

Regards,
JS
--http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

So, if I pass the wave through a slit it speeds up or slows down?
If I pass the particle through a slit it speeds up or slows down?

denny - enquiring mind and all that...

Gaussian statics law
 

Denny wrote:

...
So, if I pass the wave through a slit it speeds up or slows down?
If I pass the particle through a slit it speeds up or slows down?

denny - enquiring mind and all that...


Are you asking me to check my speedometer next time I pass under a bridge?


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

Gaussian statics law
 

John Smith I wrote:
Denny wrote:

...
So, if I pass the wave through a slit it speeds up or slows down?
If I pass the particle through a slit it speeds up or slows down?

denny - enquiring mind and all that...


Are you asking me to check my speedometer next time I pass under a bridge?


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

JS

Perhaps this URL:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm

will put everyone on "the same page" and point out that quite a few of
the debates/arguments/discussions here are probably "centered", roughly,
on the same points of dispute/contention ... or, the
unknown/unseen/unmeasured are a mystery that traditional physics
attempts to ignore and gloss over and use "place holders" to compensate
for--yet hamper our complete understanding of forces/affects/effects we
attempt to take for granted and claim a "good understanding" of.

Hey, I probably shouldn't complain--a world without mystery could get a
bit stale--I suppose ...

Regards,
JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

Gaussian statics law
 

On 14 Mar, 12:40, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
John E. Davis wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:09:27 -0800, Tom Donaly
wrote:
Different texts have Maxwell's equations in different order. What text
did you get this from? Becker has it (in Gaussian CGS units) as
div D = 4\pi\rho (where the backslash indicates multiplication, and D
and rho have the usual meanings. You can add the 't' if you want to, but
it's unnecessary. Also, since you're dealing in 3 dimensions, why not
indicate them as in E(x,y,z), or E(x,y,z,t) (if the time means something
to you)?

I tend to write equations in LaTeX form as most people I exchange
emails with mathematical equations use that for formatting mathematics.
Here, \pi represents the greek letter pi, and \rho is the greek letter
rho. I used x to represent a spatial 3-vector. I could have written
it as (x,y,z) but I did not think this shorthand would cause any
confusion given the context.

The difference between E and D is not important here. If you use D,
then \rho must be interpreted as the so-called "free" charge density.
However, the fundamental field is E, and if you use it the \rho must
be interpreted as the _full_ charge density. The relationship between
E and D can be very complex and may well depend upon the strength of
the applied field E. For simple materials a linear relationship is
usually assumed, e.g., D = \epsilon E, where \epsilon is the
dielectric constant of the medium. Also even here in this linear
relationship, \epsilon need not be a scalar (a number). It could be a
tensor (a 3x3 matrix), in which case D and E would not have the same
direction.

--John

Thanks for explaining that, John. I am unfamiliar with the conventions
of LaTex, obviously (I get my information from books that are generally
older than I am, and I'm not young). I don't have any problem with
Gauss' law being used in a non-static context. It applies, regardless.
That's as far as I go in agreeing with Art, though, since I can't
understand the rest of his theory, at all (but might if I could turn
off the left side of my brain - maybe).
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom
I was rereading this thread as to why people have a hard time in
understanding Gauss's law
with respect to conservative fields and a transition to a non
conservative field where with the addition of time one can consider
what is outside the enclosed surface. Since you pursued the
mathematical side of the subject to a minor conclusion ( you stated
you didn't understand what I was proposing) with John E Davis of
M.I.T. I wish to share with you some notes on the Internet by David J
Raymond called "a radically modern aproach"
which to me is the best I have seen on Radiation in it's entirety.
Obviously there is a lot written that as hams it is not essential
reading for hams but what it does do is explain in a very clear way
the mechanics of radiation with specific applications with respect to
the transition from conservative fields ala Gaussian law of statics to
non conservative fields where at the cessation of time one can
reconcile what is outside the enclosed surface with that which is
inside the surface where what is inside the enclosure is in
equilibrium and the enclosing surface is frictionless. As can
obviously seen a Yagi inside the enclosed border cannot be considered
since at the cessation of time interaction between elements is still
taking place after the cessation of time. The notes are so well
written that one not conversant
with upper math can still follow the implications of the discussion at
hand and thus can be considered as recommended reading for all hams
interested in antennas as a subject. It also gives a very clear
mathematical progression from Gaussian law to the subject of non
conservative fields can be formed with the activation of curl during a
moment in time.
It is this progression that leads designers to design around cluster
arrays that are in equilibrium regardless of orientation ie without
continuing coupling effects after the cessation of time and is very
well chronicalled in the above stated notes.
Best regards
Art

Gaussian statics law
 

On 18 Apr 2007 13:07:43 -0700, art wrote:

I was rereading this thread as to why people have a hard time in
understanding Gauss's law
with respect to conservative fields and a transition to a non
conservative field where with the addition of time one can consider
what is outside the enclosed surface.

Hi Art,

That single, obscure, and ponderously long sentence is a clue as to
why...

since at the cessation of time interaction between elements is still
taking place after the cessation of time.

One has to wonder what new meaning you have for the word "cessation."

How can there be any time (for anything to take place) when there is
no more time (for anything to take place).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian statics law
 

On 18 Apr, 13:36, Richard Clark wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 13:07:43 -0700, art wrote:

I was rereading this thread as to why people have a hard time in
understanding Gauss's law
with respect to conservative fields and a transition to a non
conservative field where with the addition of time one can consider
what is outside the enclosed surface.

Hi Art,

That single, obscure, and ponderously long sentence is a clue as to
why...

since at the cessation of time interaction between elements is still
taking place after the cessation of time.

One has to wonder what new meaning you have for the word "cessation."

How can there be any time (for anything to take place) when there is
no more time (for anything to take place).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

When power supply is stopped to an array inside an enclosed surface
kinetic energy is in evidence by radiation between elements PRIOR to
emerging from the enclosed surface.
You cannot have an equation with reference to time if equality is not
obtained at the cessation of the time under consideration.
You should read up on conservative and non conservative fields before
you succumb to temptation by replying while you still have your foot
in your mouth. I have responded to you this one time only to show
others how stupid you can be when you allow animosity to over ride
cfommon sense.

Gaussian statics law
 

art wrote:


When power supply is stopped to an array inside an enclosed surface
kinetic energy is in evidence by radiation between elements PRIOR to
emerging from the enclosed surface.
You cannot have an equation with reference to time if equality is not
obtained at the cessation of the time under consideration.
You should read up on conservative and non conservative fields before
you succumb to temptation by replying while you still have your foot
in your mouth. I have responded to you this one time only to show
others how stupid you can be when you allow animosity to over ride
cfommon sense.


Yes, and well-done

Gaussian statics law
 

On 18 Apr 2007 13:54:19 -0700, art wrote:

When power supply is stopped to an array inside an enclosed surface
kinetic energy is in evidence by radiation between elements PRIOR to
emerging from the enclosed surface.
You cannot have an equation with reference to time if equality is not
obtained at the cessation of the time under consideration.

Hi Art,

Unless the enclosed surface is immense, all times (even for HF)
considered are on the scale of nanoseconds. At common excitations
considered for Amateur application would reveal power issues in the
microwatts. The ratio of scales (energy/time-volume) would be 9
orders of magnitude and well outside the accuracy of any modeler, and
vastly beyond the cares of useful theory.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian statics law
 

On 18 Apr, 13:07, art wrote:
On 14 Mar, 12:40, "Tom Donaly" wrote:





John E. Davis wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:09:27 -0800, Tom Donaly
wrote:
Different texts have Maxwell's equations in different order. What text
did you get this from? Becker has it (in Gaussian CGS units) as
div D = 4\pi\rho (where the backslash indicates multiplication, and D
and rho have the usual meanings. You can add the 't' if you want to, but
it's unnecessary. Also, since you're dealing in 3 dimensions, why not
indicate them as in E(x,y,z), or E(x,y,z,t) (if the time means something
to you)?

I tend to write equations in LaTeX form as most people I exchange
emails with mathematical equations use that for formatting mathematics.
Here, \pi represents the greek letter pi, and \rho is the greek letter
rho. I used x to represent a spatial 3-vector. I could have written
it as (x,y,z) but I did not think this shorthand would cause any
confusion given the context.

The difference between E and D is not important here. If you use D,
then \rho must be interpreted as the so-called "free" charge density.
However, the fundamental field is E, and if you use it the \rho must
be interpreted as the _full_ charge density. The relationship between
E and D can be very complex and may well depend upon the strength of
the applied field E. For simple materials a linear relationship is
usually assumed, e.g., D = \epsilon E, where \epsilon is the
dielectric constant of the medium. Also even here in this linear
relationship, \epsilon need not be a scalar (a number). It could be a
tensor (a 3x3 matrix), in which case D and E would not have the same
direction.

--John

Thanks for explaining that, John. I am unfamiliar with the conventions
of LaTex, obviously (I get my information from books that are generally
older than I am, and I'm not young). I don't have any problem with
Gauss' law being used in a non-static context. It applies, regardless.
That's as far as I go in agreeing with Art, though, since I can't
understand the rest of his theory, at all (but might if I could turn
off the left side of my brain - maybe).
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom
I was rereading this thread as to why people have a hard time in
understanding Gauss's law
with respect to conservative fields and a transition to a non
conservative field where with the addition of time one can consider
what is outside the enclosed surface. Since you pursued the
mathematical side of the subject to a minor conclusion ( you stated
you didn't understand what I was proposing) with John E Davis of
M.I.T. I wish to share with you some notes on the Internet by David J
Raymond called "a radically modern aproach"
which to me is the best I have seen on Radiation in it's entirety.
Obviously there is a lot written that as hams it is not essential
reading for hams but what it does do is explain in a very clear way
the mechanics of radiation with specific applications with respect to
the transition from conservative fields ala Gaussian law of statics to
non conservative fields where at the cessation of time one can
reconcile what is outside the enclosed surface with that which is
inside the surface where what is inside the enclosure is in
equilibrium and the enclosing surface is frictionless. As can
obviously seen a Yagi inside the enclosed border cannot be considered
since at the cessation of time interaction between elements is still
taking place after the cessation of time. The notes are so well
written that one not conversant
with upper math can still follow the implications of the discussion at
hand and thus can be considered as recommended reading for all hams
interested in antennas as a subject. It also gives a very clear
mathematical progression from Gaussian law to the subject of non
conservative fields can be formed with the activation of curl during a
moment in time.
It is this progression that leads designers to design around cluster
arrays that are in equilibrium regardless of orientation ie without
continuing coupling effects after the cessation of time and is very
well chronicalled in the above stated notes.
Best regards
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom,
I thought I would add the following as a former mechanical engineer.
I do believe that electrical students are taught that displacement
current is some sort of electrical current when it is no such thing.
If students were taught what they read as displacement current is
really the displacement of flux under time varying conditions there
would not be a barrier inferred between statics and electromagnetics.
If you review what is termed as displacement current in text books and
view again it in terms of flux movement during a space of time all
that I am espousing will become so much clearer and understandable.
Ofcourse ,those who passed exams by memory alone instead of knoweledge
of first principles will never be able to understand the underlying
logic to which I am referring
Regards
Art

Gaussian statics law
 

On 9 Mar, 07:49, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

But Jimmie my friend, now you have an understanding of Gaussian law
what is preventing you adding the metric of time or a length of time
to the statics law?

Art,

Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865.
The detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them
today, was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However,
Maxwell gets the credit for adding the time contribution.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Yes, but he never made it in terms of reference to antennas. By using
the conservative field transition to a non conservative field as a
follow up example the equation now has more meaning than just
mathematics in that it provides a datum for maximum efficiency.
I don't believe anybody evoked Gaussian law to express a situation for
maximum efficiency
of radiation by specifying an array of resonant radiators which also
was never included in Maxwells laws. Science is improved by what is
seen to many as minor steps that apparently everybody was aware of but
did not know how to take advantage of that knoweledge to provide a
fresh data base for the state of the art. The World was aware of
adding the time contribution but no one, no college, no scientist, no
author, just nobody
provided a kernel of knoweledge regarding equilibrium in connection to
efficient electromagnetic radiation. Knoweledge of a relationship is
one thing , puting that knoweledge to use is required for the
advancement otherwise it plays dead for centuries.
In life everybody claims that an invention is nothing but only one
gets off the couch.
When the application is published you and others have the right to
petition the PTO showing prior publication or prior knoweledge with
respect to the state of the art. This ofcourse requires more than just
words such as spouted off from this newsgroup .You really have to walk
the walk and if you don't understand the underpinnings of what I term
a Gaussian antenna or challege it as a sample of nonsense then it is
you that must provide the facts that make it so and this thread shows
your inadequacy to do so. Only one person came forward to
acknoweledged the presence of conclusive mathematical support supplied
by
John Davis and where the rest of this long thread are in denial,
occupied by empty words of denial without proof. Seems like most
threads are reaching the hundred mark on this group because of
collective confusion of what is really tought at teaching institutions
and the effects of time that make these teachings all different.
Art