Gaussian statics law
 

On 19 Apr 2007 09:56:45 -0700, art wrote:

Only one person came forward to
acknoweledged the presence of conclusive mathematical support supplied
by
John Davis

Hi Art,

He confirmed it was Maxwell's (Heavisides actually) equations. I
provided the actual quotes. If you wish, you can consult the same
reference we BOTH used: "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," or I can
rummage up that material again.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian statics law
 

art wrote:
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


Art,

All I can say is that Dr. Davis is a lot smarter than the rest of us. He
quickly recognized pure BS and bailed out from this discussion in a hurry.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gaussian statics law
 

On 19 Apr, 11:22, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
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

Art,

All I can say is that Dr. Davis is a lot smarter than the rest of us. He
quickly recognized pure BS and bailed out from this discussion in a hurry.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well Gene you have admitted in the past to having an extensive
background in physics, three
educational degrees no less, are you still in denial with respect to
the authenticity of the mathematics provided by Dr Davis? You never
have enunciated a change from your prior comments regarding that
subject.
Also you have pointed out that all is known by you yet you keep
stating that the Gaussian connection with respect to static fields
have no connection academically with radiation but never with any
proof. You and many of the other naysayers can point to an example of
radiation that stems from Gaussian law. Many have even stated that
there is no connection
between Gaussian law of statics and radiation even in the face of
irrifutable mathematics evidence provided. On the other side of the
coin people state it WAS already known in total opposition to other
posts that they have made. Ofcourse every body knew it they all read
it somewhere where the subject was discussed but memories appear to be
to hazy to recall exactly where it was discussed, used or totally
trashed. Now we have moved to Feynman and his series of teachings, did
he have a volume on the subject that was stolen at the outset? Gene
you have been given mathematical backing to what I have stated did you
get all those degrees without studying math? With all those degrees
you have you should be able to understand not only the math supplied
but also give a scientific analysis as to why
conservative fields and non conservative fields can prove or disprove
a continuum between statics and electromagnetism in a legible form
that enphasises your background knoweledge that you claim. Only once
in a while does a person get a real chance to show the value of his
wisdom and knoweledge to his peers and it should not be seen as
digging a hole for himself to hide in but sharing the benefits
obtained by obtaining many degrees in physics.You don't need to refer
to any books that discuss the subject you can teach it in your own
right, I for one is all ears for evidence gained from your many years
used to attain your honors that you talk about
Art

Gaussian statics law
 

On 19 Apr, 10:59, Richard Clark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 09:56:45 -0700, art wrote:

Only one person came forward to
acknoweledged the presence of conclusive mathematical support supplied
by
John Davis

Hi Art,

He confirmed it was Maxwell's (Heavisides actually) equations. I
provided the actual quotes. If you wish, you can consult the same
reference we BOTH used: "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," or I can
rummage up that material again.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It was only AFTER the intervention did you aknoweledged the undeniable
truth of what
Dr Davis presented. Before then the debate was about the legitamacy of
adding time to both sides to the Gaussian law on statics. You posted
often in that debate as did all the other experts all in total denial
of the veracity of what I stated. True many of your posts are clounded
with flowery language to emphasis your position but never did a
specific point make it thru to any sort of objective. At any time you
or anybody could have turned around in your thinking and point your
spear in the ground alongside me but none did. Even after the
intervention of Dr Davis only one person followed thru until personal
satisfaction was obtained
regarding the mathematics. I seem to remember an obscure posting that
you made towards
Dr Davis that seemed to have undertones of disagreement but ithe prose
was difficult to understand so there is no personal credit you can
steal for your self, you had posted so many times prior to that time
in dissent. In years to come this thread will be read time and time
again as evidence of the multi pseudo experts who lived on this
newsgroup that argued without any grounds whatso ever about science
and Gaussian antennas and I will cherish that time as the so called
experts are finally exposed for what they are to the amateur radio
fraternity. Ofcourse you could re write all of your posts such that
true scientific data could penetrate the maze place in the way to
prove your position one way or another or even point to the chapter
that you were first to disclose to the world the veracity of what I
had to say but then you can't because it doesn't exist, many have
spoken of this proof but none have been able to deliver and neither
can you. Richard you are a fraud.

Gaussian statics law
 

art wrote:
On 19 Apr, 10:59, Richard Clark wrote:

On 19 Apr 2007 09:56:45 -0700, art wrote:


Only one person came forward to
acknoweledged the presence of conclusive mathematical support supplied
by
John Davis

Hi Art,

He confirmed it was Maxwell's (Heavisides actually) equations. I
provided the actual quotes. If you wish, you can consult the same
reference we BOTH used: "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," or I can
rummage up that material again.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


It was only AFTER the intervention did you aknoweledged the undeniable
truth of what
Dr Davis presented. Before then the debate was about the legitamacy of
adding time to both sides to the Gaussian law on statics. You posted
often in that debate as did all the other experts all in total denial
of the veracity of what I stated. True many of your posts are clounded
with flowery language to emphasis your position but never did a
specific point make it thru to any sort of objective. At any time you
or anybody could have turned around in your thinking and point your
spear in the ground alongside me but none did. Even after the
intervention of Dr Davis only one person followed thru until personal
satisfaction was obtained
regarding the mathematics. I seem to remember an obscure posting that
you made towards
Dr Davis that seemed to have undertones of disagreement but ithe prose
was difficult to understand so there is no personal credit you can
steal for your self, you had posted so many times prior to that time
in dissent. In years to come this thread will be read time and time
again as evidence of the multi pseudo experts who lived on this
newsgroup that argued without any grounds whatso ever about science
and Gaussian antennas and I will cherish that time as the so called
experts are finally exposed for what they are to the amateur radio
fraternity. Ofcourse you could re write all of your posts such that
true scientific data could penetrate the maze place in the way to
prove your position one way or another or even point to the chapter
that you were first to disclose to the world the veracity of what I
had to say but then you can't because it doesn't exist, many have
spoken of this proof but none have been able to deliver and neither
can you. Richard you are a fraud.

This is just SO absurd. I no longer know who needs to just get a life
and who needs a significant change in medication. I've seen this
behavior in other groups and, for a while, it is mildly entertaining.
Now it is annoying. Antennas, remember?

Gaussian statics law
 

On 19 Apr 2007 12:48:58 -0700, art wrote:

It was only AFTER the intervention did you aknoweledged the undeniable
truth of what
Dr Davis presented.

Hi Art,

Well, in fact it was Dr. Davis (who came into the discussion rather
late) who had to agree in the end with those who presented the simple
connection between Maxwell (actually Heaviside) with his time variant
magnetic fields and Gauss with his time invariant magnetic fields.
Every antenna modeler on the market employs the time variant magnetic
fields' math described by Maxwell (actually Heaviside).

Maxwell is about dynamics, which means time variant; and Gauss is
about statics, which means time invariant (or constant, never
changing). If you inject a "cessation of time" you are already in the
dynamics side of magnetics = Maxwell.

Are you declining the invitation to review Feynman? He is pretty
accessible, not much math - except for what really counts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian statics law
 

On 19 Apr, 15:21, Richard Clark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 12:48:58 -0700, art wrote:

It was only AFTER the intervention did you aknoweledged the undeniable
truth of what
Dr Davis presented.

Hi Art,

Well, in fact it was Dr. Davis (who came into the discussion rather
late) who had to agree in the end with those who presented the simple
connection between Maxwell (actually Heaviside) with his time variant
magnetic fields and Gauss with his time invariant magnetic fields.
Every antenna modeler on the market employs the time variant magnetic
fields' math described by Maxwell (actually Heaviside).

Maxwell is about dynamics, which means time variant; and Gauss is
about statics, which means time invariant (or constant, never
changing). If you inject a "cessation of time" you are already in the
dynamics side of magnetics = Maxwell.

Are you declining the invitation to review Feynman? He is pretty
accessible, not much math - except for what really counts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You are lying again. You never convinced the Doctor in any sort of
corrective way, only one person stated agreement with his summation of
mathematics No body in this group has brought forward prior knowledge
or agreement between conservative and not conservative fields by use
of the Gaussian method. Oh how quickly people forget their anger of
the idea of connecting static with non static situations. My goodness
how soon you forget the slander projected because of this supposedly
silly idea. As far as going with you to review Feynman forget it. If
you can find proof of anything relevent fine it would give a good
starting point as to why antenna engineers declined to pursue the
discovery. Frankly I am getting close to the position that most do not
understand antennas, what I am proposing and just want to prove their
masculinity by way of slander, this ofcourse does not apply to you.
I believe this thread will make a wonderfull story in the future as to
how rank amateurs tried to stop science from advancing. The material
is here both funny and sad which will come into focus when the patent
is awarded and interest picks up. True I have provoked people to
verbalise their thoughts but for good reason I want to show all what
you really are in the near future.Sooner or later this all will be
discussed in all educational institutions and the next generation can
move forward without hindrence from the agrivation of a bunch of old
men.

Gaussian statics law
 

On 19 Apr 2007 16:26:33 -0700, art wrote:

As far as going with you to review Feynman forget it. If
you can find proof of anything relevent fine it would give a good
starting point as to why antenna engineers declined to pursue the
discovery.

Hi Art,

Feynman merely confirmed the math of 70 years of antenna design before
him. Nothing has altered since 1963, dynamic magnetic fields are
still defined by Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations, and static
magnetic fields are still defined by Gauss' equations. Any discussion
of the "cessation of time" immediately casts all work into Maxwell's
(Heaviside's) math.

Nothing had to be invented because Maxwell (Heaviside) had done the
basic math long before antennas were ever discovered. In fact, about
190 years ago Augustin-Jean Fresnel beat them all to the punch without
a flicker of electricity or magnetism ever entering the picture.

Antenna engineers have been using Fresnel math too. Amateur radio
operators respond to it every time they complain of picket-fencing on
2M. That math is contained in EVERY antenna modeler that offers
radiation characteristics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian statics law
 

On 19 Apr, 19:41, Richard Clark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 16:26:33 -0700, art wrote:

As far as going with you to review Feynman forget it. If
you can find proof of anything relevent fine it would give a good
starting point as to why antenna engineers declined to pursue the
discovery.

Hi Art,

Feynman merely confirmed the math of 70 years of antenna design before
him. Nothing has altered since 1963, dynamic magnetic fields are
still defined by Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations, and static
magnetic fields are still defined by Gauss' equations. Any discussion
of the "cessation of time" immediately casts all work into Maxwell's
(Heaviside's) math.

Nothing had to be invented because Maxwell (Heaviside) had done the
basic math long before antennas were ever discovered. In fact, about
190 years ago Augustin-Jean Fresnel beat them all to the punch without
a flicker of electricity or magnetism ever entering the picture.

Antenna engineers have been using Fresnel math too. Amateur radio
operators respond to it every time they complain of picket-fencing on
2M. That math is contained in EVERY antenna modeler that offers
radiation characteristics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian statics law
 

On 19 Apr, 19:41, Richard Clark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 16:26:33 -0700, art wrote:

As far as going with you to review Feynman forget it. If
you can find proof of anything relevent fine it would give a good
starting point as to why antenna engineers declined to pursue the
discovery.

Hi Art,

Feynman merely confirmed the math of 70 years of antenna design before
him. Nothing has altered since 1963, dynamic magnetic fields are
still defined by Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations, and static
magnetic fields are still defined by Gauss' equations. Any discussion
of the "cessation of time" immediately casts all work into Maxwell's
(Heaviside's) math.

Nothing had to be invented because Maxwell (Heaviside) had done the
basic math long before antennas were ever discovered. In fact, about
190 years ago Augustin-Jean Fresnel beat them all to the punch without
a flicker of electricity or magnetism ever entering the picture.

Antenna engineers have been using Fresnel math too. Amateur radio
operators respond to it every time they complain of picket-fencing on
2M. That math is contained in EVERY antenna modeler that offers
radiation characteristics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It was Gauss who started a progression from statics to
electromagnetics by defining a clustered array as being in equilibrium
within a closed surface in his law of statics
Nobody used this law in the design of a electromagnetic array. There
were mathematical
equations in existance that linked statics and electromagnetic
functions in mathematical terms but there was never a clue as to how
to demonstrate it. Only Gauss gave an "at rest" example of such an
array with his law of statics but even he did not continue with his
line of thought with respect to static particles as being at rest on a
radiating array where the condition of equilibrium could be stated. If
Gauss had continued with his line of thought by being aware of
radiation in terms of radio I am quite sure he would have continued
the exercise with the addition of time. However it is my understanding
that at that time he was residing in Italy and was more interested in
other things. I do not recall Gauss, Maxwell and other masters making
a point of using such a cluster as one of maximum efficiency with
respect to radiation. Nor do I recall any mention where scientists
have used such an example in print and either lauding or decrying its
properties in the light that the ratio of elements vs boom length does
not apply and where a Gaussian array was an example of a non scalar
array. I am sure that it is possible after the event that many clever
people played with such arrays and like you decided it wasn't worth
writing about and so forgot about it.
There are also people who never linked the subject of statics with the
subject of antennas
as mentioned on this newsgroup and I don't remember seeing such an
array in Krauss and Jasik or even the ARRL antenna books which to me
is a real puzzle since you apparently have known about the hints that
Gauss supplied for maximum efficiency radiating arrays for many years.
So I think the time has come since I have described the antenna in
detail that somebody should come forward and share with all exactly
where this application to antennas was reviewed in print or the IEEE
or equivalent so that we can all benefit from this peer review.