Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 25 Jun, 18:11, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:

"You mean he named one of his laws after Gauss?"

I suggested Art read Griffith`s "Radio-Electronic Transmission
Fundamentals". It opens with a brief history of electrical knowledge. It
says that Michael Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction in 1831
and that simultaneously, far away in America, a professor named Joseph
Henry independently made the same discovery.
By this time we already had Colounb`s Law, Ampere`s rule, Gauss` Law,
concerning the relationship between the magnetic field and induced
voltage. Nothing seemed to tie these miscellaneous relationships
together until James Clerk Maxwell, a child prodigy, who entered the
University of Edinburg at age 13 years and was a brilliant student, put
it all together in his unifying equations and published a book,
Electromagnetic Theory. Oliver Heaviside read the book and simplified
for the less erudite, teaching himself the mathematics necessary to
understand Maxwell as he went.

Unless Art has something that Maxwell and Heaviside didn`t cover, it`s
no time to shout eureka! We`ve taken Gauss from the static and made him
dynamic.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
You have stated that you don't understand the antenna and I believe
you'
others have stated the same but from what I have read Richard is the
only one on the same platform with sufficient knoweledge to debate.
Saying that is for me like pulling teeth!
You putting a lot of unrelated stuff on this thread is just plain
out of order if it is not relevent to the discussion.
Again, you have said many times you don't understand the antenna
where-as Richard of Seattle does, so let him speak.
Start your own thread on tall things you have just read and think
should be repeated or written again.
There is no way this is going to be resolved if you attempt
to make a sequel to burning water by inventing some
irrelavent tangent. For once listen and learn
and then go to a book and verify what you heard and not what
you thought you read, then you can speak with authority of
your own. We are discussing one thing and one thing only,
it is not connected in any way to what you just printed.

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 25 Jun, 17:46, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 25 Jun, 16:21, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:57:32 -0700, art wrote:
'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact,
Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain'

Arthur,

I have no problem with that statement so it
provides an ideal starting point.

There are accepted convention in faithfully quoting a document you are
immediately responding to. To take my words and re-arrange them to
suit your own way of understanding is NOT a quote from me.

If you will be specific I will gladly change to your satisfaction
and apologise if required. I don't remember using double quotes("..")
but I am not going to quibble.

My understanding is that Maxwell had a host
of theorems by many scientists from which
to draw information from, many of which
gave the connection of the statics to
time domain aproach.

I am not aware of any evidence that he drew on Gauss
for this since Gauss had not provided this extension.
Can you supply me a source that verifies this fact?

You mean like he NAMED one of his laws after Gauss? Doesn't that give
you a clue? Dr. D. already supplied the source, I responded to it and
corrected Dr. D's error of attribution.

I would be more than happy to read that
source if you state without qualification that Gauss's law of Statics
was modified by Maxwell to form a basis of a radiating antenna
is illustrated in that book.
I know of no reference anywhere that refers to a radiator or cluster
of
radiators loaded with static particles in a closed loop or "pill box"
as defined by Gaussian law. Certainly the good Doctor did not intimate
that such a reference was in that book but I welcome a snippit of
that conversation that tells me otherwise.
If you can state what page where it can be seen I would be most
gratefull and certainly would provide it to the PTO as required
by law . If Feynman supplied that history that would be fine by me.
Such a reference is not only required by law but it would
also provide a reference of prior use of that "law" against which
my request can be referred to for similarities, together with
a description of that antenna that the public can also see
for there own education. Providing this reference would be
seen as a courtesy by me and supplied without rancour and
certainly would provide what the group has been asking for
i.e. something that everybody can understand and be grateful
for.

Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG

...........................
The rest to be responded to later if necessary or required

Read the source we BOTH refer to. It has been offered to you by us
BOTH.
We then come to a very important question with regard
to my patent request.
Since you say it has already been invented

Show my statement, in my own words, quoted in the accepted convention
from the exact source (in other words, highlight the statement in the
original posting I made, and post that here).

If you cannot perform the minimum practices of quoting, then there's
nothing more to be said.

I will deal with this after question 1 is responded to in a proper
manner
Question 1 is the very description that the naysayers are asking for
so they can understand the antenna but Q1 comes before Q2.
In fact if question 1 is satified it also satisfies Question 2
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art et al.

I am not aware if this reference has been posted to this newsgroup.

http://n-t.ru/tpe/ng/gvg.htm

It seems to concern research conducted in Russia and to be relevant to what
Art is trying to explain.

The article and references appear genuine as far as I can ascertain, but the
English translation leaves a bit to be desired.

Strictly a neutral bystander in this discussion

Regards

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike, How you came across this and why is something
I could not possibly have done myself. I find it unbelievable
that somebody in Russia would collect all this information
and place things in their correct order and where the
information came from and it arrives in some wierd way
at this newsgroup at this specific time.
Much of what he is stating is relavent to Gauss and
his input to science and what use was made of his input.
He has explained things so much better than I ever could
but then he is a scientist with authority where as I am
just a retired engineer blindly finding a way thru science and
radiation. This paper is a keeper for me and will be valuable
to me in so many ways. I note that you are neutral but
you have obviously have been reading my posts for you to
make the connection and sharing it with the group.
I can't thank you enough for doing what you have done
and it is certainly no problem to me that you are neutral.
What is important that views that I hold have now been published
on the other side of the pond that gives a modicom of credability
to what I have been sharing. Thanks again
Regards
Art Unwin....KB9MZ.....XG

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 17:46, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 25 Jun, 16:21, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:57:32 -0700, art wrote:
'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact,
Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain'
Arthur,
I have no problem with that statement so it
provides an ideal starting point.
There are accepted convention in faithfully quoting a document you are
immediately responding to. To take my words and re-arrange them to
suit your own way of understanding is NOT a quote from me.
If you will be specific I will gladly change to your satisfaction
and apologise if required. I don't remember using double quotes("..")
but I am not going to quibble.
My understanding is that Maxwell had a host
of theorems by many scientists from which
to draw information from, many of which
gave the connection of the statics to
time domain aproach.
I am not aware of any evidence that he drew on Gauss
for this since Gauss had not provided this extension.
Can you supply me a source that verifies this fact?
You mean like he NAMED one of his laws after Gauss? Doesn't that give
you a clue? Dr. D. already supplied the source, I responded to it and
corrected Dr. D's error of attribution.
I would be more than happy to read that
source if you state without qualification that Gauss's law of Statics
was modified by Maxwell to form a basis of a radiating antenna
is illustrated in that book.
I know of no reference anywhere that refers to a radiator or cluster
of
radiators loaded with static particles in a closed loop or "pill box"
as defined by Gaussian law. Certainly the good Doctor did not intimate
that such a reference was in that book but I welcome a snippit of
that conversation that tells me otherwise.
If you can state what page where it can be seen I would be most
gratefull and certainly would provide it to the PTO as required
by law . If Feynman supplied that history that would be fine by me.
Such a reference is not only required by law but it would
also provide a reference of prior use of that "law" against which
my request can be referred to for similarities, together with
a description of that antenna that the public can also see
for there own education. Providing this reference would be
seen as a courtesy by me and supplied without rancour and
certainly would provide what the group has been asking for
i.e. something that everybody can understand and be grateful
for.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
...........................
The rest to be responded to later if necessary or required
Read the source we BOTH refer to. It has been offered to you by us
BOTH.
We then come to a very important question with regard
to my patent request.
Since you say it has already been invented
Show my statement, in my own words, quoted in the accepted convention
from the exact source (in other words, highlight the statement in the
original posting I made, and post that here).
If you cannot perform the minimum practices of quoting, then there's
nothing more to be said.
I will deal with this after question 1 is responded to in a proper
manner
Question 1 is the very description that the naysayers are asking for
so they can understand the antenna but Q1 comes before Q2.
In fact if question 1 is satified it also satisfies Question 2
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Art et al.

I am not aware if this reference has been posted to this newsgroup.

http://n-t.ru/tpe/ng/gvg.htm

It seems to concern research conducted in Russia and to be relevant to what
Art is trying to explain.

The article and references appear genuine as far as I can ascertain, but the
English translation leaves a bit to be desired.

Strictly a neutral bystander in this discussion

Regards

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike, How you came across this and why is something
I could not possibly have done myself. I find it unbelievable
that somebody in Russia would collect all this information
and place things in their correct order and where the
information came from and it arrives in some wierd way
at this newsgroup at this specific time.
Much of what he is stating is relavent to Gauss and
his input to science and what use was made of his input.
He has explained things so much better than I ever could
but then he is a scientist with authority where as I am
just a retired engineer blindly finding a way thru science and
radiation. This paper is a keeper for me and will be valuable
to me in so many ways. I note that you are neutral but
you have obviously have been reading my posts for you to
make the connection and sharing it with the group.
I can't thank you enough for doing what you have done
and it is certainly no problem to me that you are neutral.
What is important that views that I hold have now been published
on the other side of the pond that gives a modicom of credability
to what I have been sharing. Thanks again
Regards
Art Unwin....KB9MZ.....XG


Nikolai Noskov. He thinks Einstein's ideas on relativity are
total bunk. He does have a nice paper on the propulsion
mechanism of flying saucers, though. That seems to fit with
much of the material on this newsgroup, lately. I guess it was
inevitable that the twisted logic of insanity would eventually prevail
here. It's much easier to just be nuts than to make an honest attempt to
understand the physical universe.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

Tom Donaly wrote:

[stuff]

Now let me see ...

We came from a lightning strike of a primordial fluid ... and nature
makes life? And, that explains "us."

However, if you think the same thing happened on one of the hundreds of
billions of planets out there, and life exists like us, and they may be
studying us ... you are a kook?

Well, I kinda agree, but awaiting further data ... but then with so many
kooks, kinda hard to tell one kook from another!

Regards,
JS

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:18:44 -0700, art wrote:

I have no problem with that statement so it
provides an ideal starting point.

There are accepted convention in faithfully quoting a document you are
immediately responding to. To take my words and re-arrange them to
suit your own way of understanding is NOT a quote from me.

If you will be specific I will gladly change to your satisfaction
and apologise if required. I don't remember using double quotes("..")
but I am not going to quibble.

Hi Arthur,

Your statement above shown following the initial
is a corrupted interpretation, not a quote of mine.

The statement that follows with the initial
is a complete and accurate quote of mine.

I would be more than happy to read that
source if you state without qualification that Gauss's law of Statics
was modified by Maxwell to form a basis of a radiating antenna
is illustrated in that book.

Nearly any Fields text discusses this with 100s of pages of math,
Feynman skips the math (no one can challenge him in that department)
and simply dwells on the science.

I know of no reference anywhere that refers to a radiator or cluster
of
radiators

I gave you references for Bennetti and Tosi. If you choose to
"forget" them, I see little point in this humble enquiry of yours.

loaded with static particles in a closed loop or "pill box"
as defined by Gaussian law.

As you are asking for references of Gaussian Law, as it has been
extended into the time domain; then, yes, it is obvious you are not
aware. However, you are also not aware that they also leave behind
statics for good and obvious reasons: radiation is dynamic, not
static.

Certainly the good Doctor did not intimate
that such a reference was in that book but I welcome a snippit of
that conversation that tells me otherwise.
If you can state what page where it can be seen I would be most
gratefull and certainly would provide it to the PTO as required
by law . If Feynman supplied that history that would be fine by me.
Such a reference is not only required by law but it would
also provide a reference of prior use of that "law" against which
my request can be referred to for similarities, together with
a description of that antenna that the public can also see
for there own education. Providing this reference would be
seen as a courtesy by me and supplied without rancour and
certainly would provide what the group has been asking for
i.e. something that everybody can understand and be grateful
for.

Given your bipolar attitudes and posturing, I seriously doubt you
would express gratitude of any meaningful measure. And as far as the
requirements of the law go, that's between you and the judge. Further,
my already having provided these references in the past (something you
steadfastly refuse to do for others irrespective of their color or
stripe) would it seem ironic of me to suggest, as you have in the
past, that I am not here to do your job?

In Volume 2, Feynman devotes chapter 5 to what is called "Application
of Gauss' Law." You have been plagiarizing it for months. It employs
surfaces, it employs equilibrium, and it is specifically about STATIC
charges, or charges moving in an uniform motion (which is to say
non-accelerating, which, of course, would bring about radiation). All
such matters necessarily restrict the change of charge to 0 (there is
no time element).

This is can all be found in a first semester Physics syllabus which
is, in essence, an elaboration of High School Physics.

This is all a rehash of the thread that Mark already supplied a
reference for! The citations are all there!

At the expense of bandwidth, I will repeat the cogent points:
First from Dr. D:
In volume
II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the title of chapter 15,
section 6 is "What is true for statics is false for dynamics".

I pointed out to Dr. D that he had neglected to read the footnote
provided by Feynman, so as to not trip up the student in unforgivable
misunderstandings:
At the bottom of that Table is a footnote explaining the bold arrow of
your Gauss' law. It reads:
"The equations marked by an arrow (-») are Maxwell's equations."

The table equation, and the one you reference in the text are both
Maxwell's.

I then went on to complete the reference of "Gauss' Law":
Then in chapter 18, section 1 paragraph 3 you will find the statement:
"In dynamic as well as static fields, Gauss' law is always valid".

That chapter, too, clearly defines the same equation you are making an
appeal to as "Maxwell's equations." Observe Table 18-1 "Classical
Physics"

There is, of course, more material in that thread that bears DIRECTLY
to "Gauss' Law" being extended into the time domain by Maxwell. This
is the stuff of a second semester Physics syllabus (at least when I
took it, it was). I will leave that to the bailiff to remind you of
your legal responsibilities for complete disclosure to the PTO. I am
sure the examiner has already studied this material (it is normally
required of them besides the Law degree); luckily it has no bearing on
the issuance of any patent.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 26 Jun, 00:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:18:44 -0700, art wrote:
I have no problem with that statement so it
provides an ideal starting point.

snip


I gave you references for Bennetti and Tosi. If you choose to
"forget" them, I see little point in this humble enquiry of yours.

Thanks for responding to my question

If you would be kind enough to give me the name
of the book I will put an order in for it.
Hopefully it will be printed in English but the
drawing will be enough
If the details of the antenna is there then
your accusation of plagurism could well be seen
as possible, but not substantiated

Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG



73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:17:45 -0700, art wrote:

If you would be kind enough to give me the name
of the book I will put an order in for it.

Arthur,

The subject has been discussed by several who agree to the authority,
including Dr. D. If you choose to snip out that title in your
response here to only ask for it again - what does that demonstrate?

The names of inventors are suitably unique for a general search.

Earlier citations were full to authors, works, chapters, tables, and
publishers to further refine any search.

As late as 36 hours ago, Mark supplied the specific link as I've
mentioned three times now. I see you have tendered no thanks to him
for his effort, nor have applauded his memory recall in your behalf.
Such is the shallowness of your generousity.

You don't even have to face your own advice to others telling them to
do their own search. You merely have to review the correspondence (no
more complex than double-clicking the link Mark provided).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 25 Jun, 21:35, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 17:46, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

On 25 Jun, 16:21, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:57:32 -0700, art wrote:
'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact,
Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain'
Arthur,
I have no problem with that statement so it
provides an ideal starting point.
There are accepted convention in faithfully quoting a document you are
immediately responding to. To take my words and re-arrange them to
suit your own way of understanding is NOT a quote from me.
If you will be specific I will gladly change to your satisfaction
and apologise if required. I don't remember using double quotes("..")
but I am not going to quibble.
My understanding is that Maxwell had a host
of theorems by many scientists from which
to draw information from, many of which
gave the connection of the statics to
time domain aproach.
I am not aware of any evidence that he drew on Gauss
for this since Gauss had not provided this extension.
Can you supply me a source that verifies this fact?
You mean like he NAMED one of his laws after Gauss? Doesn't that give
you a clue? Dr. D. already supplied the source, I responded to it and
corrected Dr. D's error of attribution.
I would be more than happy to read that
source if you state without qualification that Gauss's law of Statics
was modified by Maxwell to form a basis of a radiating antenna
is illustrated in that book.
I know of no reference anywhere that refers to a radiator or cluster
of
radiators loaded with static particles in a closed loop or "pill box"
as defined by Gaussian law. Certainly the good Doctor did not intimate
that such a reference was in that book but I welcome a snippit of
that conversation that tells me otherwise.
If you can state what page where it can be seen I would be most
gratefull and certainly would provide it to the PTO as required
by law . If Feynman supplied that history that would be fine by me.
Such a reference is not only required by law but it would
also provide a reference of prior use of that "law" against which
my request can be referred to for similarities, together with
a description of that antenna that the public can also see
for there own education. Providing this reference would be
seen as a courtesy by me and supplied without rancour and
certainly would provide what the group has been asking for
i.e. something that everybody can understand and be grateful
for.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
...........................
The rest to be responded to later if necessary or required
Read the source we BOTH refer to. It has been offered to you by us
BOTH.
We then come to a very important question with regard
to my patent request.
Since you say it has already been invented
Show my statement, in my own words, quoted in the accepted convention
from the exact source (in other words, highlight the statement in the
original posting I made, and post that here).
If you cannot perform the minimum practices of quoting, then there's
nothing more to be said.
I will deal with this after question 1 is responded to in a proper
manner
Question 1 is the very description that the naysayers are asking for
so they can understand the antenna but Q1 comes before Q2.
In fact if question 1 is satified it also satisfies Question 2
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Art et al.

I am not aware if this reference has been posted to this newsgroup.

http://n-t.ru/tpe/ng/gvg.htm

It seems to concern research conducted in Russia and to be relevant to what
Art is trying to explain.

The article and references appear genuine as far as I can ascertain, but the
English translation leaves a bit to be desired.

Strictly a neutral bystander in this discussion

Regards

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike, How you came across this and why is something
I could not possibly have done myself. I find it unbelievable
that somebody in Russia would collect all this information
and place things in their correct order and where the
information came from and it arrives in some wierd way
at this newsgroup at this specific time.
Much of what he is stating is relavent to Gauss and
his input to science and what use was made of his input.
He has explained things so much better than I ever could
but then he is a scientist with authority where as I am
just a retired engineer blindly finding a way thru science and
radiation. This paper is a keeper for me and will be valuable
to me in so many ways. I note that you are neutral but
you have obviously have been reading my posts for you to
make the connection and sharing it with the group.
I can't thank you enough for doing what you have done
and it is certainly no problem to me that you are neutral.
What is important that views that I hold have now been published
on the other side of the pond that gives a modicom of credability
to what I have been sharing. Thanks again
Regards
Art Unwin....KB9MZ.....XG

Nikolai Noskov. He thinks Einstein's ideas on relativity are
total bunk.

There is always contention regading ideasduring the century or more
that they are made. Einstein idea is a composition of ideas provided
by other scientists which provided a path for him to follow.
Obviously other ideas are in the format stage which will conclude
in further ideas on which to build a building block. You as a
scientist
are just one of many that have ideas on this aspect of science and
if you live another 100 years so that you could study incomming data
you could possibly state if I knew that earlier I would not have taken
up my previous position. Hawkins and others are also involved with
the universe trying to match their logic with prior scientists and
mathematical laws that have survived the test of time but all
aditions
must also pass the testof time to the satifaction of all. Actually
one could compare your position on the ascertion that the world
was flat while taking comfort with the thought that those who
would disagree would proclame the opposite only after one was dead.
If twisted logic was in the majority then twisted logic always wins
until it becomes a minority which requires the adition of time.
If you take the position that particles collide while travelling
with the same velocity and in the same direction ala within
the confines of a Gaussian field, you also can make a disclosure
that can add to the general discussion on radiation and be considered
as you say 'an honest attempt to understand the physical universe.
I for one will not call you nuts.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG




He does have a nice paper on the propulsion
mechanism of flying saucers, though. That seems to fit with
much of the material on this newsgroup, lately. I guess it was
inevitable that the twisted logic of insanity would eventually prevail
here. It's much easier to just be nuts than to make an honest attempt to
understand the physical universe.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 26 Jun, 07:53, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:17:45 -0700, art wrote:
If you would be kind enough to give me the name
of the book I will put an order in for it.

Arthur,

The subject has been discussed by several who agree to the authority,
including Dr. D. If you choose to snip out that title in your
response here to only ask for it again - what does that demonstrate?

The names of inventors are suitably unique for a general search.

Earlier citations were full to authors, works, chapters, tables, and
publishers to further refine any search.

As late as 36 hours ago, Mark supplied the specific link as I've
mentioned three times now. I see you have tendered no thanks to him
for his effort, nor have applauded his memory recall in your behalf.
Such is the shallowness of your generousity.

You don't even have to face your own advice to others telling them to
do their own search. You merely have to review the correspondence (no
more complex than double-clicking the link Mark provided).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

So you cannot supply or point to an instance where a Gaussian antenna
is clearly represented using the Gaussian law of Statics.
That was the question I asked.
Thanks for the chat
Art

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

big snip
Art et al.

I am not aware if this reference has been posted to this newsgroup.

http://n-t.ru/tpe/ng/gvg.htm

It seems to concern research conducted in Russia and to be relevant
to what
Art is trying to explain.

The article and references appear genuine as far as I can ascertain,
but the
English translation leaves a bit to be desired.

Strictly a neutral bystander in this discussion

Regards

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike, How you came across this and why is something
I could not possibly have done myself. I find it unbelievable
that somebody in Russia would collect all this information
and place things in their correct order and where the
information came from and it arrives in some wierd way
at this newsgroup at this specific time.
Much of what he is stating is relavent to Gauss and
his input to science and what use was made of his input.
He has explained things so much better than I ever could
but then he is a scientist with authority where as I am
just a retired engineer blindly finding a way thru science and
radiation. This paper is a keeper for me and will be valuable
to me in so many ways. I note that you are neutral but
you have obviously have been reading my posts for you to
make the connection and sharing it with the group.
I can't thank you enough for doing what you have done
and it is certainly no problem to me that you are neutral.
What is important that views that I hold have now been published
on the other side of the pond that gives a modicom of credability
to what I have been sharing. Thanks again
Regards
Art Unwin....KB9MZ.....XG

Nikolai Noskov. He thinks Einstein's ideas on relativity are
total bunk.

There is always contention regading ideasduring the century or more
that they are made. Einstein idea is a composition of ideas provided
by other scientists which provided a path for him to follow.
Obviously other ideas are in the format stage which will conclude
in further ideas on which to build a building block. You as a
scientist
are just one of many that have ideas on this aspect of science and
if you live another 100 years so that you could study incomming data
you could possibly state if I knew that earlier I would not have taken
up my previous position. Hawkins and others are also involved with
the universe trying to match their logic with prior scientists and
mathematical laws that have survived the test of time but all
aditions
must also pass the testof time to the satifaction of all. Actually
one could compare your position on the ascertion that the world
was flat while taking comfort with the thought that those who
would disagree would proclame the opposite only after one was dead.
If twisted logic was in the majority then twisted logic always wins
until it becomes a minority which requires the adition of time.
If you take the position that particles collide while travelling
with the same velocity and in the same direction ala within
the confines of a Gaussian field, you also can make a disclosure
that can add to the general discussion on radiation and be considered
as you say 'an honest attempt to understand the physical universe.
I for one will not call you nuts.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG




He does have a nice paper on the propulsion
mechanism of flying saucers, though. That seems to fit with
much of the material on this newsgroup, lately. I guess it was
inevitable that the twisted logic of insanity would eventually prevail
here. It's much easier to just be nuts than to make an honest attempt to
understand the physical universe.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Tom

I prefer to think that the Russians adopt a more pragmatic approach to
physics than in the West. They seem to be far happier to work with observed
phenomena without necessarily bothering with total understanding of how it
works. It probably isn't good science from a Western viewpoint but in the
main, their stuff seems to work better than some over engineered Western
designs. With a country covering 18 time zones it is inevitable that a
degree of Far Eastern philosophy will influence their scientic thinking. If
it works, don't fix it and accept that there are some things we are not
currently in a position to understand. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try
though.

Einstein's ideas are the best predictive theories we have to date but they
are certainly considered incomplete in the light of current research. Not
complete bunk by any means, but not the whole story either.

Mike G0ULI

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

art wrote:


So you cannot supply or point to an instance where a Gaussian antenna
is clearly represented using the Gaussian law of Statics.
That was the question I asked.
Thanks for the chat
Art


Art,

Nobody can supply or point to an instance in this newsgroup where a
Gaussian antenna is clearly represented using the Gaussian law of Statics.

I guess you are correct: equilibrium prevails.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On 26 Jun, 10:25, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

So you cannot supply or point to an instance where a Gaussian antenna
is clearly represented using the Gaussian law of Statics.
That was the question I asked.
Thanks for the chat
Art

Art,

Nobody can supply or point to an instance in this newsgroup where a
Gaussian antenna is clearly represented using the Gaussian law of Statics.

I guess you are correct: equilibrium prevails.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Thank you
Art

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:58:59 -0700, art wrote:

So you cannot supply or point to an instance where a Gaussian antenna
is clearly represented using the Gaussian law of Statics.

There is no such thing. Given that you haven't gotten a grasp on what
constitutes "Gauss' Law," you are going to be forever fishing for
validation.

All the toads you've kissed, you have later spit on for not becoming
Princes of your cause. That, or they've hopped off into the bushes
leaving you to proclaim their valuable support, erudition, and
academic majesty; and who only left because they became sullied by
mixing with us in this viper pit. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian antenna planar form
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:17:45 -0700, art wrote:

If you would be kind enough to give me the name
of the book I will put an order in for it.

Arthur,

The subject has been discussed by several who agree to the authority,
including Dr. D. If you choose to snip out that title in your
response here to only ask for it again - what does that demonstrate?

The names of inventors are suitably unique for a general search.

Earlier citations were full to authors, works, chapters, tables, and
publishers to further refine any search.

As late as 36 hours ago, Mark supplied the specific link as I've
mentioned three times now. I see you have tendered no thanks to him
for his effort, nor have applauded his memory recall in your behalf.
Such is the shallowness of your generousity.

You don't even have to face your own advice to others telling them to
do their own search. You merely have to review the correspondence (no
more complex than double-clicking the link Mark provided).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

He is a lost cause, Richard. I plonked him months ago, and only see his
reponses through those who still waste their time with him. If we all
filtered him, he would disappear.

tom
K0TAR