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

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.

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

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

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.

On 21 Apr 2007 19:40:35 -0700, art wrote:

However it is my understanding
that at that time he was residing in Italy and was more interested in
other things.

Hi Art,

An Italian by the name of Marconi was interested in exactly those kind
of things. Other Italians by the Bellini and Tosi designed sloping
elements fed by what by description would be called a goniometer. By
adjusting the coupling of coils they could send/receive signals at any
angle. This was all going on nearly 100 years ago.

Coils, Gauss. Sloping elements, clusters. Any angle, through
coupling. Sound familiar?

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.

There was no such thing as the IEEE back then. Before the IEEE it was
the IRE. There was no such thing as the IRE back then either. Before
the IRE there were Ham magazines. There was no such thing as Ham
radio back then either. Marconi won the Nobel prize in Physics for
this 98 years ago. His peers were Nobel Laureates. You want
publications? Try the Nobel Lectures, Physics 1901-1921, Elsevier
Publishing Company, Amsterdam. If you can read Italian, then Bellini
and Tosi's work is available there too. English translations abound
on the Internet.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it... why don't you work on that and get back to us when you get it
through peer review and it gets published.

On 22 Apr, 04:06, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





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.

it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it... why don't you work on that and get back to us when you get it
through peer review and it gets published.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No David, if people were aware of it there would be endless books
about it. Think about what this newsgroup has said. If you have a
mathematical equation you cannot add the unit of time to BOTH sides of
that equation! How dumb can you get and these people view themselves
as antenna experts who demand mathematical proof. David my intent is
to expose them for what they are. Look at what Richard stated in
response to my posting, you have to dig a bit and then take a guess at
what he is talking about but he mentions "coupling" as being the meat
of his reply. But most people are aware that if an array is in
equilibrium then there is no coupling ! Coupling with respect to
antennas the subject at hand requires elements to attract or deflect
such it allows for focussing of radiation.Equilibrium is a state where
such actions do not exist. Another person gets irate because the terms
polarity and polarization were used in a single posting regarding
antennas since one of these terms he had a disliking for( I don't know
which one). And then there was that hulla balloo about the
introduction of statics in connection with kinetic and potential
energy as if that was sacrelidge . Then there was that time when all
stated that the Yagi was a most efficient radiator when they pushed
aside the notion that interaction between elements was not a measure
of inefficiency. They also went into denial that a cluster in
equilibrium presented the ultimate in efficiency as coupling did not
exist.And it goes on and on David. And the more they talk the more
they expose themselves for what they are. What I am doing by staying
on subject is laborious to say the least but when posters retrieve all
the writings about potential and kinetic energy by Maxwell that many
ignored including Terman and many others but they knew about all along
will all come out
to the amateur fraternity and they will be exposed. That is my aim in
what I do and when my writings are published it will be there for all
to see that contrary rationilisation by this group is generally a
bunch of hooey by illiterates and the sole reason why accepted experts
in the field of antennas are noticable by their absence.
Art

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 22 Apr, 04:06, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





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.

it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it... why don't you work on that and get back to us when you get
it
through peer review and it gets published.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No David, if people were aware of it there would be endless books
about it. Think about what this newsgroup has said. If you have a
mathematical equation you cannot add the unit of time to BOTH sides of
that equation! How dumb can you get and these people view themselves
as antenna experts who demand mathematical proof. David my intent is
to expose them for what they are. Look at what Richard stated in
response to my posting, you have to dig a bit and then take a guess at
what he is talking about but he mentions "coupling" as being the meat
of his reply. But most people are aware that if an array is in
equilibrium then there is no coupling ! Coupling with respect to
antennas the subject at hand requires elements to attract or deflect
such it allows for focussing of radiation.Equilibrium is a state where
such actions do not exist. Another person gets irate because the terms
polarity and polarization were used in a single posting regarding
antennas since one of these terms he had a disliking for( I don't know
which one). And then there was that hulla balloo about the
introduction of statics in connection with kinetic and potential
energy as if that was sacrelidge . Then there was that time when all
stated that the Yagi was a most efficient radiator when they pushed
aside the notion that interaction between elements was not a measure
of inefficiency. They also went into denial that a cluster in
equilibrium presented the ultimate in efficiency as coupling did not
exist.And it goes on and on David. And the more they talk the more
they expose themselves for what they are. What I am doing by staying
on subject is laborious to say the least but when posters retrieve all
the writings about potential and kinetic energy by Maxwell that many
ignored including Terman and many others but they knew about all along
will all come out
to the amateur fraternity and they will be exposed. That is my aim in
what I do and when my writings are published it will be there for all
to see that contrary rationilisation by this group is generally a
bunch of hooey by illiterates and the sole reason why accepted experts
in the field of antennas are noticable by their absence.
Art


unfortunately much of engineering requires equations. if you can't write
the equations well enough to explain the concept then you are going to have
a hard time selling it to the engineering community. you may be able to
convince some lay people that you have a new concept, like the EH and other
'new concept' charlatans have, but in the long run it won't fly.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:06:53 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

it probably hasn't been because nobody has bothered to write a reviewable
paper on it...

Hi Dave,

As I've already pointed out, this was done a long time ago and is in
the library.

20 years after that work, better designs came down the pike - namely
the Yagi. How many folks are writing "reviewable papers" about that
design? Not many since Isbell some nearly 50 years ago.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC