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