"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 22 Apr, 07:09, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





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

groups.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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The equations were explained quite well by Dr John Davis some time ago
on this newsgroup.
Some even say that they knew about this all along! Some are not
interested in anything only in aurgueing. David this newsgroup is
about antennas and radiation, virtual this orimaginary that is for
people that just want to argue. Just look at the simple dipole where
we cannot accept it being efficient other than at 90 degree multiples.
Engineers look at a vectorial reconstruction of radiation and find
that the resultant vector is not and cannot be inline and parallel to
the radiator itself ,so they decide to ignor the fact and move on to
another subject.
You would think that a group of engineers would be interested in why
in the world would we not be interested in the final vectors
characteristics such as to where it was pointing!
You would also think that engineers would be interested in antenna
design which by not involving interaction such as focussing does not
produce side lobes or provides bandwidth characteristics that are in
synch with each other but no the interest lies more in trying to kill
the messenger where true engineers are trying to build on this
information given and present it in their good time. The fact is that
Maxwell stated many years ago the interconnective aspect and I gave
an extension to Gaussian law that expounds on an array in equilibrium
which shows simplicity at it's best what Maxwell enunciated. Nowhere
is there writings with samples of the simplicity of this arrangement
in the multiplicity of radiation books available
and since the majority are not capable of individual thought that they
have to await the printing of a more modern book which they can point
to for reference. Remember Gausses law was based on static particles
at rest not caring one iota upon the dormant parts on what they are
resting on or part of by describing them being in a state of
equilibrium with a state of potential energy. It is for engineers to
review a transition from potential energy to kinetic energy of these
particles where when time is removed the initial equation still
stands. This I have provided an example which existing antenna
computing programs concurr with. In addition the sample describes the
near field as being a separate entity to its self and where the
radiation field does not begin within the confines of the radiator
itself where coupling interferes with the separation of potential
energy and kinetic energy formation.
Best regards
Art

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Remember Gausses law was based on static particles
at rest not caring one iota upon the dormant parts on what they are
resting on or part of by describing them being in a state of
equilibrium with a state of potential energy.

the only antenna with particles at rest is one that isn't transmitting or
receiving... not much use in my opinion.

On 22 Apr, 13:59, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...
Remember Gausses law was based on static particles

at rest not caring one iota upon the dormant parts on what they are
resting on or part of by describing them being in a state of
equilibrium with a state of potential energy.

the only antenna with particles at rest is one that isn't transmitting or
receiving... not much use in my opinion.

Your opinion is noted David. What other quotations of the masters do
you feel should be dissed in your opinion ?
Art