LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13   Report Post  
Old June 25th 07, 06:51 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Gaussian antenna planar form

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
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gaussian antenna aunwin art Antenna 57 March 3rd 07 09:36 PM
FS WiNRADiO AX-31B Planar Log-Periodic Antenna HK Swap 0 May 30th 05 01:26 PM
how to feed a planar monopole antenna using ie3d skdas Antenna 0 May 10th 05 07:39 PM
FA: WiNRADiO AX-31B PLANAR LP ANTENNA HK Swap 0 September 16th 04 05:44 AM
FA: WiNRADiO AX-31B Planar Log-Periodic Antenna Bill Crocker Scanner 3 January 18th 04 02:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017