On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:45:31 GMT, Dave
wrote:
Gauss' Law is for static electric charges and fields.

It is usually used for problems in electrostatics, but it is not
confined to such problems. The differential form of it is just one of
the Maxwell equations:

div E(x,t) = 4\pi\rho(x,t)

Integrate it over a fixed surface and you get the integral form, which
is Gauss's law. It is valid with time-dependent charge densities and
time-dependent electric fields.

--John

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

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

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

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 9 Mar, 02:33, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

Gentlemen from outside of America. Gauss's law with respect to statics
is quite specific and easy to understand. What is so wrong in
mathematical terms by adding the metric of time to the law so that
curl can be accomodated? i.e. change from a conservative field where
all vectors have zero length,
to a electro magnetic equation by adding the words " the addition of
time" which by providing a three dimensional field has the true
inclusion of curl i.e. all vectors have value in length and direction.
America denies the feasability of such an addition to an existing law
which in essence is regarded as a new law without basis on this side
of the pond.Are all countries of this mentallity?
Art

Because a static field does not produce an EM field(curl) only if that
static charge is in motion. Motion would even include taking a charged
body,
say a pith ball and waving it back and forth. Electrons have a static
charge
but when they are in motion in a conductor they produce fields(curl).
Electrons moving about an atom also produces fields but the net result of
all the aoms moving about is zero. PLEASE REFERENCE THE GUASSIAN LAW ON
STATICS. I still think you are confusing static with statistics.

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? What is it that frightens you and other Americans
about that
little step? Start off my looking at it in pure mathematical terms and
determine if the intent of the law is still not violated. Don't go
beyond that at this time just consider the mathematics and get
comfortable with it
Art


Because it is meaningless