On 2 May, 04:13, (J. B. Wood) wrote:
In article , Roy Lewallen

wrote:
The problems you're encountering are the result of trying to
oversimplify electromagnetic theory by reducing it to conceptual models
which are far from adequate. Your basic conceptual models are faulty, so
any conclusions you draw from using these models will eventually lead to
contradictions. That same problem has, in fact, been the cause of a huge
number of argumentative postings on this newsgroup.

snip

Well stated, Roy. I suspect the majority of hams are not degreed EEs that
have delved into elementary electromagnetic theory (It was the least
popular EE course when I was an undergrad.) Of course you don't need an
in-depth understanding to get on the air. The problem, as you point out,
arises when folks start going beyond the "practical" and hobby aspects
(e.g. beyond the scope of the ARRL handbooks) by providing explanations of
phenomena that are not supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied in
Maxell's equations.

snip

Hmmmmm!

Then how do you account for the broad rejection from
"EE"s of Gaussian antennas that comply and are
supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied
in Maxwells equations ?
As you put your address as the "Naval Research
Laboratory" where would you place the responsability
for rejection?
Personaly I would place it in the syndrome of

" Not invented at my place"

which always trumps the pursuit of pure science.
You are not alone ofcourse, as even esteemed
institutions such as Nasa and Universities follow
the same regimen since their concerns are with
their own pockets rather than science for itself.
I read the other day that antenna design was
holding up what appears to be tremendous
advances in science especially in the science
of communications. Yet derision is placed at
the feet of the inventors of many antenna theories
for having the temerity of challenging the "all is known"
attitudes where curiousity should have always reigned.

Art.


,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

In article om, art
wrote:

Hmmmmm!

Then how do you account for the broad rejection from
"EE"s of Gaussian antennas that comply and are
supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied
in Maxwells equations ?
As you put your address as the "Naval Research
Laboratory" where would you place the responsability
for rejection?
Personaly I would place it in the syndrome of

" Not invented at my place"

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, Art. I have no experience with
"Gaussian antennas." If these antennas have been the subject of, say IEEE
papers my guess would be that they are worthy of investigation. In the
case of the CFA, cold fusion or anything else for that matter,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. IOW anyone can
believe anything they want. The problem is in getting others to believe
it. And when it comes to skeptical scientists/physicists/engineers that
ain't easy. However, the truth more often than not emerges at some
point. Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

On May 2, 5:23 pm, (J. B. Wood) wrote:
In the
case of the CFA, cold fusion or anything else for that matter,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Most of us would be happy with just ordinary evidence:
bigfoot - a specimen, or some bones. Just the normal stuff.
paranormal - just a repeatable controlled experiment
cold fusion - just a repeatable controlled experiment
CFA - the same

Not anecdote, however. That never counts.

....Keith

On 2 May, 15:47, Keith Dysart wrote:
On May 2, 5:23 pm, (J. B. Wood) wrote:

In the
case of the CFA, cold fusion or anything else for that matter,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Most of us would be happy with just ordinary evidence:
bigfoot - a specimen, or some bones. Just the normal stuff.
paranormal - just a repeatable controlled experiment
cold fusion - just a repeatable controlled experiment
CFA - the same

Not anecdote, however. That never counts.

...Keith

No Kieth that is not true. A month ago we had a Doctor from MIT who
gave
a descision on this newsgroup with respect to the Maxwells law. He
made an
mathematical analysis of an antenna that complied via mathematics.
Only one person agreed with his analysis. All others on this
newsgroup
denied the existance of this analysis as "proof". The Doctor gave an
analysis of a
conservative field that was transformed to a non concervative field by
the addition of
a unit of time. In that case it was a Gaussian field that followed
Gaussian law and the Doctor
showed by the addition of time to a conservative field it complied
with Maxwells laws by changing to a non conservative field that
allowed for a design of a radiating array of maximum efficiency. I
also saw it as an explanational truth of Poyntings Vector.
We have many different types of experts on this newsgroup and all but
one person dissed the idea of conformaty to Maxwell. So something
simple is not want this group wants it is something to diss and
degenerate. As J B Wood stated the truth eventually will come out,
but it will not be via this newsgroup. By the way, there was nobody
except one familiar enough with Maxwells laws to mount a professional
response and many who one would have assumed had the required
knoweledge either dissed or stayed quiet to stay on the safe side.
Art

On May 2, 12:06 pm, art wrote:
On 2 May, 04:13, (J. B. Wood) wrote:




Then how do you account for the broad rejection from
"EE"s of Gaussian antennas that comply and are
supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied
in Maxwells equations ?

It's fairly simple from my point of view.. You talk a bunch of jibber-
jabber
that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and you seem to refuse
to want to build and test an actual antenna.
Talk is cheap to me. I want to see one in the air, live, and working.
Compare it to a known reference like a 1/2 dipole and let the chips
fall where they may. Then you have something to actually talk about.
MK

On 3 May, 10:41, wrote:
On May 2, 12:06 pm, art wrote:

On 2 May, 04:13, (J. B. Wood) wrote:

Then how do you account for the broad rejection from
"EE"s of Gaussian antennas that comply and are
supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied
in Maxwells equations ?

It's fairly simple from my point of view.. You talk a bunch of jibber-
jabber
that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and you seem to refuse
to want to build and test an actual antenna.
Talk is cheap to me. I want to see one in the air, live, and working.
Compare it to a known reference like a 1/2 dipole and let the chips
fall where they may. Then you have something to actually talk about.
MK

I was referring to 'EE's not " HS "graduates ! It is certainly
understandable
from those who are not familiar with the arts. You can only get so
far with a
general understanding but it has been said on this newsgroup by others
that without a full understanding of the concepts you finish up with
lots of
misconceptions, and that seems to make makes sense when I read your
postings.
.. I suggest you keep quiet and wait until you can buy one then you
are
less likely to screw up. It is not a design for a typical couch expert
to
expound upon. Suggest you wait until you can quote from a book
if you want to impress

art wrote:


I was referring to 'EE's not " HS "graduates ! It is certainly
understandable
from those who are not familiar with the arts. You can only get so
far with a
general understanding but it has been said on this newsgroup by others
that without a full understanding of the concepts you finish up with
lots of
misconceptions, and that seems to make makes sense when I read your
postings.

Are you an EE? Seems to me you were some type of mechanical
engineer. If so, I don't see how your qualifications are a heck of
a lot greater than mine.
How would you describe your level of understanding? General? High?
Massive? Einsteins lost step child? I could guess, but I'll reserve
comment..
What misconceptions have I finished up with lately? Can you list them?
I'd be glad to go back and review any I'm not aware of.

. I suggest you keep quiet and wait until you can buy one then you
are
less likely to screw up.

Why would I want to buy a gaussian antenna? I have no real use for one
that I can think of. Besides, I don't generally waste money on
antennas.

It is not a design for a typical couch expert
to
expound upon.

I've never been able to gather enough coherant details to expound on
it,
even if I wanted to. Also, I don't sit on a couch. There is one in the
other
room, but I'm never in there. I sit in a rollaround office chair,
which hurts
my ass in general. Needs more cushioning. A couch might be more
comfortable, but would probably sit too low. I also doubt I have
enough
room in this clutterhut room to fit a couch...

Suggest you wait until you can quote from a book
if you want to impress

I rarely quote from books. And I'm not here to impress people.
Why would I try to do that when many here obviously know
quite a bit more than I do? Or you for that matter...
Would be like racing a pack of V8 corvettes with a V6 impala.
I've never claimed to be any great guru of antennas.
I just fart with this stuff to kill time, and maybe erect a bit
better
antenna than I would if I buried my head in the sand.
I don't have any real "guru" ego to try to protect. I just call em as
I
see em..
I do have a few books, but I'm almost always too lazy to get up
and find one to quote whatever it would be I would want to quote.
But my comments still stand. I hear about all these new fangled
gaussian designs, but I never hear much about you actually trying
or using any of them.
If I was trying to design a new type of antenna, I would test it in
the real world before trying to convince the masses of the internet
if it is a workable design or not. Seems to me it would save a lot of
time. From what I read of your posts, I'm not even sure if you know
if it's workable or not. To me, that strikes me as a weird way to
live.
MK