On 24 Jun, 20:00, wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:01 pm, art wrote:



No that is not true. After trying several times to educate the group
and getting responses such as yours he decided to move on as
other experts have done in the past. They are trying to help with the
amateur radio antenna group but realised quite quickly it was
mainly composed of the non antenna type people. They don't need
the sort of things that are stated they move on. He has a Doctorate
and thus he is qualified for some respect

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a/browse_frm/t...

I had to refresh myself on the reasons of his departure..He never
really proved anything.. In fact, at
the end, Richard Clark seemed to be making a pretty good case that he
was misreading, or
misinterpreting the data.. But he never came back to respond to the
last posts.
The way I see it, it never really was agreed on one way or the other.
I'm fairly sure he
failed to convince a few on here. Seems to me, with his vast storages
of knowledge,
having a doctorate, papers on wall, etc, that he should have been
able to settle things
real quick just by shear brute force of reasoning. Didn't seem to work
that way.
But all this is really moot. It doesn't matter. Even if he was
correct, I'm still
fairly certain that the antennas you are cooking up don't rely on such
exotic
"gaussian" methods to function. Thats assuming you believe in such a
thing..
MK

This debate has finally supplied the reason why Industry is demanding
more immigration from other countries. It wasn't like this in my
working
years but Bill Gates is adament that the present crop of graduates
is not up to snuff for reasons I do not know. The Insurance industry
is making no bones about the same thing. In my town we have two
universities
and another two within 60 miles yet we also have a thriving business
for the importation of Indian engineers, 100s of them with families.
GE has basically left as has Eureka vacuum machines and many other
industries
There has been one replacement that came here from Japan building cars
but they need more and more money to stay here. Why our education
system
is failing or if this group is representitive of what industry does
not
want I do not know, but the fact is to pay thousands of dollars for
an
experience that industry is not interested in will lead to a further
decrease in education as the surge of imported education fills the
ever increasing gap. Ofcourse we can threaten other countries that
have
supplied our rust belt with statements like 'you are with us or
against us'
but the fact is we are not a world leader anymore but an importer of
what we cannot produce for ourselves to make a paper empire.
It used to be that capitalism was the envy of the world where
the market ruled until America found out it was much cheaper to
manipulate the market to suit and where education can be outscourced.
I suppose the question has to be asked, is this group representitive
of an America that we want to see in our grandchildrens future or
does arrogance have a down side of a World wide nature?
Art

On Jun 24, 9:51 pm, art wrote:
Majority of whiny "woe is the U.S." drivel deleted...

I suppose the question has to be asked, is this group representitive
of an America that we want to see in our grandchildrens future or
does arrogance have a down side of a World wide nature?
Art


If you spent 2 percent of the time actually providing facts about your
antennas, as you do all this whiny "woe is Art drivel", you would
not have near the problem you do.

As an example, Tom Ring said:

****Tom

All I am asking of Art, and I've asked before, is that he give us the
dimensions of one of his wonder antennas. If he gives us one of the
simpler ones, he has given little away, but will allow us to confirm
his
claims. Since we, as a group of stupid EEs, can't possibly figure out
how to duplicate his method of making another better one, he has
nothing
to lose. *****

Do you try to provide any of this info, which would be required to
make any kind of decent analysis of the antenna?
No, You are sitting here wasting your time with me, acting basically
like a whiner. It's kinda of sickening to me... I'm a redneck.
Rednecks generally find whiners to be kind of disgusting...
I think what it boils down to, is you want patent "Validation" via
usenet.. LOL... Kind reminds me of that Edwards guy that says
he talks to dead people... He's just a slick cold reader..
I also hear he probably bugs the waiting rooms, etc.
Maybe you should try his show for better results..
I know for myself, I still don't have any clue what this antenna
really
looks like, how it's fed, etc.. One day you say all the elements
are fed in "equilibrium", which most rational people would probably
assume all are fed in phase as a driven array. But then you change
your mind and say only one element is actually fed.
So being no one can tell how it's fed, we can only assume it's a
close spaced yagi with unoptimum element lengths, or a driven
array. Most of us don't buy all the voodoo science mumbo jumbo..
But you can't even enlighten anyone to how it's actually fed.
You would rather waste time writing line, after line, after line,
after line, after line, after line, of whiny "woe is Art" drivel.
Yuri had it right. You should call it the "Geussian" antenna.
I've only said this about 29 times, but why don't you just
ignore everyone and build the freaking thing and see if it
works for yourself. It's obvious not many others seem to care
one way or the other. But I don't think you can even get around to
that because you are too busy whining all the time. Unbelievable...
I'm not going to bother you anymore about it. I think it's hopeless.
I'll just continue to chuckle along in the background. You are
better than the comedy channel any day of the week.
MK

wrote in message I think what it boils down to, is you want
patent "Validation" via
usenet.. LOL...

Worse than that, he wants SELF validation via usenet.

Jimmie

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:00:22 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:01 pm, art wrote:
He has a Doctorate
and thus he is qualified for some respect
I had to refresh myself on the reasons of his departure..He never
really proved anything.. In fact, at
the end, Richard Clark seemed to be making a pretty good case that he
was misreading, or
misinterpreting the data.. But he never came back to respond to the
last posts.

Hi Mark,

This appeal to the missing authority is a common one used to prop up
lame arguments. However, what is/was in dispute was simply the
terminology of "Gauss' Law" as distinct from what Gauss himself
originated in his own math. The "Law" being used to prove a concept
was, in fact, Maxwell's extension of the statics to the time domain.

Now, this is something that Arthur has crowed as being his own mental
turf as his newly discovered concept from what was written in the dust
on the bookshelf holding Gauss' original work. Arthur has cobbled up a
theory of static energy transmission by his "original" patchwork of
Xeroxed sources.

Of course, we all recognize the outlines of this "theory" as being
Maxwell's contribution, but Arthur says no, it is original to Arthur
alone and all the text books through the centuries have missed this
key concept he has derived to educate us all to usher in a new era of
antennas. Unfortunately Arthur is condemned to tools using Maxwell's
equations (not Gauss) to prove this by producing inferior examples.

Dr. Davis waded into this morass to support Arthur with this "Gauss'
Law" and even went so far as to quote Feynman who also used the term.
However, Feynman (from the same source quoted by Dr. D) fully
acknowledges Maxwell's extension of Gauss while maintaining the term
"Gauss' Law."

This is quite common in science. In the field of Nanotechnology,
resistance is non-linear. With an increasing potential, current flows
in increasing discrete step-like increments (think quanta).
Researchers describe this with their own math and call their extension
"Ohm's Law," but rest assured, Georg Simon Ohm never EVER considered
this possibility in a linear media.

As with the relation between Newton and Einstein, Newtonian mechanics
is now considered to be a first approximation with recent science
being more complete. Such is the correlation between Ohm then and
now. Neither Newton nor Ohm has been disproven, nor are they
incorrect,

What is called "Gauss' Law" or "Ohm's Law" is neither in the late era.
They are merely acknowledgements of concepts that have been extended
and amplified through refinement. As such, nothing has supplanted the
earlier efforts, merely embroidered them for those who get close to
the edges. Unfortunately, this does not describe Arthur's reactionary
and very conservative embrace of dogma. Changing labels on the
bottles does not improve their vintage.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

snip

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,
I have read your letter several times.
Even parts that I considered not pertinent
to the subject at hand since a lot of it
is just opinion some of which I disagree.
However it would appear to be the beginnings
of a debate in an area that others are
uncomfortable and for that I thank you
The following provides the crux of the debate.

'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact,
Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain'

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

We then come to a very important question with regard
to my patent request.
Since you say it has already been invented this
inferres that you are aware of a source where the
transition from Gauss was documented as the foundation
of a new antenna design. This surely will put my
submission back to the dark ages.
Would you care to share this with the group?

Thus from the above you will see that curtailed
the length of this post to two questions only
so differences cannot be skirted unless intended
Regards
Art

Art wrote:
"This surely will put my submission back to the dark ages."
That`s where it belongs. Coulomb`s Law is a producct of the 1780`s, and
Gauss was a conteporary. Unification of all known electrical laws by
James Clerk Maxwell and their formulation by Oliver Heaviside was the
proudest accomplishment of the 19th cenury physics according to
Wikipedia.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

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.

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.

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.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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" 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

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