On 30 Jun, 03:04, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ps.com...



On 29 Jun, 17:12, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

On 29 Jun, 14:18, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we
may
yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian
antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and
the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where
each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state
where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other.
This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us.
This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium.
If
an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange
itself
to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by
equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles
shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its
surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of
particles
are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its
constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification
with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight,
reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to
give
an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way
can
be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three
dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces
involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to
be
radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in
equilibrium.
it
also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even
along
the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up
tighter
in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually.
even
a
wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and
voltages
based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's
orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire
summed
up
to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child
without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing
a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of
metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece
of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that
because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, let me talk about equilibrium a little bit more as the
lessons
learned
from many years on this newsgroup shows this to be a real stumbling
block.
For someone with a learned background there is a great emphasis on
the
mathematical side of proving concepts that were origional derived by
observation
of the universe where the student of the day concentrates more on
the
mathematical
aspect which is required for a non oral examination. Thus it is
natural for
such a student to equate the "equal" term in mathematics to the word
"equilibrium"
Equilibrium can be used as an "equal" sign but certainly not always
and again the
"equilibrium" term cannot be interchanged easily with the term
"equilibrium"
As the Russian has pointed out that we have altered the path of
science by being
led by mechanical machines in number crunching style where numbers
are
placed
into a grinder and where we examine the mix to see if anything
usefull
comes out
and where the computor is used to magnify possible paths where the
resulting
mix in general goes no where. You now have to put another hat on and
rely on
that bit by bit observations becomes a story and where bits are
missing you use
intuition to bridge the gap that is consistent with the theme. It is
later
that mathematics comes into the picture where we check to see if
there
is a
common realistic theme. Maxwell did this by collecting different
stories
and connected them by trails of a story into numbers and though he
saw
a
connection between a static sbject and a dynamic subject he never
accumulated
enough clues to develop a story to match the mathematics. What we
are
doing now
is going back in time using observations of the universe to form a
story even
tho the mathematical links are some what preknown as individual
parts
as those
observers of the past would do by deduction and without the use of a
computor
Hope that helps rather than confused you but we are retracing the
step
in the
past taken by Gauss.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Back to mowing the grass or.....coooo dee graaaar

but what is in equilibrium when this single resonant gaussian element
is
fed
with rf and is radiating?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, Now it is you that is jumping to fast.
Let us go back to the last place where you said not to fast.
We were looking at what is termed a Gaussian field with the standard
"pillbox"
where inside are located some statitic particles. Pick up a book
and bone up just in this area since this drawing is commonplace but
add to the drawing
an outline of two elements where the surface of which have the static
particle resting.
Gauss talks about this picture a lot but he was not aware of such
things as antennas
only static particles where we know better than that because elements
have static particles
that rest on the surface of conductive items on this earth and we will
want to deduce how these particles react when given an electrical
shock
since we know that most people jump when they come into contact with
it.
Bone up on Gausses law of staics and the pill box picture that one
associated with that law.
Don't forget that the elements that we are adding to this drawing is
in effect a bunch of- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

read more »

O.K. Let us back up for simplicities sake and place only one element
inside the Gaussian field with the static particle resting on it's
surface.
Here we can see a similarity to Pointings Theorm which also has an
element inside a circle and where Poynting introduced the energy
in vs energy out equation to produce a mathematical equation of the
concept
of energy applied to an element and equated it to energy out in the
form of Radiation. Thus even tho we are pursuing the same thing using
Gaussian
law of statics bothmethods ar pursueing the same final results. Thus
Poyntings
vector gives us a mathematical standard which cannot be abused even
though we are
proceding from a statics point of view. And we will point to this
mathematical standard as we move along.
Back to the Gaussian field where we decided to apply a jolt of
electricity
to the enclosed dipole. When this is done we know that two fields are
produced
around the element, one in the direction parallel to the applied
electrical
current and one at right angles to the flow of the electrical current.
We thus can add two vectors to the dipole as we know the directions
that they take.
With respect to the length of the vector the length must be zero on
all accounts
because what we are comparing to i.e. Poyntings theorem does not have
the metric of time.
However we do now have a conservative field with its vectors tho of
zero
length and if we take a step further we can use just one vector in
the
region of 45 degrees as a summation of the original two vectors.
This provides a surprise.This is stating that the direction of
radiation
is not at right angles to the radiating element in it's natural form!
From this we can make our first deduction. When pursuing a given pure
polarisation of a radiation field the radiator must be at an angle
somewhere
between parallel and the right angle position to the radiator.
This is a very important observation .....It tells us that the idea of
parallel elements for radiation as per a Yagi is really a distortion
of natural radiation from a energised radiator . One needs to take
time
and think about this implication.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG

On 30 Jun, 18:57, art wrote:
On 30 Jun, 17:12, "Dave" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 30 Jun, 15:59, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.com...
On 30 Jun, 14:32, "Dave" wrote:

"art" wrote in message
When this is done we know that two fields are
produced
around the element, one in the direction parallel to the applied
electrical
current and one at right angles to the flow of the electrical
current.
We thus can add two vectors to the dipole as we know the directions
that they take.
With respect to the length of the vector the length must be zero on
all accounts
because what we are comparing to i.e. Poyntings theorem does not have
the metric of time.
However we do now have a conservative field with its vectors tho of
zero
length and if we take a step further we can use just one vector in
the
region of 45 degrees as a summation of the original two vectors.
This provides a surprise.This is stating that the direction of
radiation
is not at right angles to the radiating element in it's natural
form!From this we can make our first deduction. When pursuing a
given pure

How do you get the 2 perpendicular fields??

I don't know.
Is it this posting or some other posting that you are refering to?
Are you changing the subject?
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

my news reader seemed to be unhappy with such a long and deeply quoted
message.... so i snipped lots of it.

i am refering to the two field vectors you specify above. where are the
parallel and perpendicular vectors developed?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I do not have two perpendicular vectors
I have one parallel to the radiator and one perpendicular
to the radiator. One vector is developed by the current
passing thru the radiator ie a electrical field.
The electrical field produces a magnetic field at right angles to
the electrical field . You can also see the vectors
a different way since you mentioned movement within the radiator
make up This provides a vector along the line of current flow.
The electrons lying on the surface are also propelled outwards
at right angles to the radiator because of the termoil
created by the electrical jolt to the densly packed particles
in equilibrium. Note the jolt is a electrical contact of an
instant of time and thus the turmoil created by this jolt
is not repetitive which because we are not adding the metric of time
We can only see the direction of the vectors but not their
values or length. These two vectors can be replaced by a single
vector residing inbetween the original vectors but since the
vectors are of zero length the exact angle of the replacement
vector cannot be determined i.e. the metric of time must be added
to the application to determine vector lengths.

Next to come....
The application of a time varing current to the conservative field
that we have just illustrated to make it a non conservative field
which creates a radiation field
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG

you can not have an electric field parallel to the radiator, that is
impossible. the electric field is perpendicular to the radiator. the
magnetic field is around the radiator in accordance with the right hand rule
from the current flow.
Very true, I misspoke
you can not replace the combination of the electric and magnetic fields with
another single vector in a macro sense. you can do the ExH at each point as
in the Poynting vector, but it will not be a single macro vector that you
can point at and say it is in any particular direction over all.

The fields are created by the agitation of the particles in the
element due to the
jolt of electricity compressing the molecules. The jolt is directional
along the line
of the element. Because of this jolting action or disturbance of the
gravitational
center electrons are propelled from the surface of the element. These
electrons
are the static particles that we started of with Ofcourse these are
two force vectors
at right angles to each other BUT because we could not add the metric
of time we can only
add the vectors in directional form because of the absence of time one
cannot quantify
the value of the actual forces. Never the less we do know that if a
jolt of electricity
was applied for a small smidgeon of time two vector forces will occur.
This constitutes
a conventional field because of the absence of the metric of time
which keeps it compatable
with Poyntings theorem.These two forces produce two fields but because
we are
following a Newtonian approach ie multi centers of gravity based on
molecular structure
it is better to use vector analysis. Since vectors aresybolic of force
together with direction
one can use the parallelogram of forces to convert into on vector. If
the absence of time
is causing you to much difficulty to follow we can skip the
conservative field which is well known
to Gauss we can transition to a non conservative field where a time
metric is added via a time varying current being applied. To keep the
unit balance compared to Poytings theorem the metric of time must also
be added to it. It is important to note that the single vector created
by the parallelogram instead of being a straight vector will now be
altered in size and shape which is called curl. This appearance can be
seen when standing in the center of a football field and watching a
spectator 'wave' form around you.

nor will either of them be zero length, since there is a current there is a magnetic
field, and there is an electric field. they do not cancel, nor do they add
to each other in any way. and we can indeed calculate exactly their
magnitude and direction, that is what you get when you apply the full set of
maxwell's equations... not just the single Gauss's equation, that is only
one part of the picture.

I see your quandry but Gauss is not aware of Maxwell and he is
following a theorem
of statics which is molecular in form so it is very reasonable to
follow the
molecular theme thruout and not change in mid stream. Regarding the
magnitude and direction
of the vector called curl we do now have direction and value. In
Maxwells equations you will see the addition of curl many times but in
general these are formulae that do not have the time metric
therefore the curl factor becomes zero but it is always considered as
part of the equation which allows for its cancellation.

you really must include the effects of the other 3

equations that take into account the time varying part of the field.

I am accomodating you in that respect by omitting the conservative
field
and going straight to a non conservative field by adding the metric of
time.
Mathematically I am still in sync with Poyntings theorem and thus
obeying
the laws of Maxwell



has it been 20 questions yet? it doesn't really matter, i'm bored with this
and don't feel like persuing it any further.

Why is that? I am accomodating your line of logic while holding to the
laws of Maxwell.

From this point on you can move to the mathematical side of

calculating the flow of flux
as it were via intergrational methods as supplied by the good Doctor
in the GAUSSIAN
ANTENNA PLANAR FORM thread but it would be better to stay on the
molecular path for a
better understanding of the molecular flow as it breaks free from the
gravitational
field in at least two places at different times as well as molecular
movement that
fails to break loose and thus forms a thick skin on the surface of the
element.
The study of this gives valuable insights to the formation ofradiation
from the
occilating swarms of molecular flow. Remember what the Russian said
about mathematics
alone because it does not divulge all the observers deductions.

if anyone wants to take on the definitions of a 'conservative' field and see
how it magically transforms to a 'non -conservative' one, have at it...
personnally i don't fine definitions for that in my text books and don't
really want to try to dig those out of art.

Well they are all in the books
but it would appear that I have moved beyond your education level
which
makes it extremely difficult a new line of logic.
Have a great day and don't work to hard. While you are at it with
that
four square design you might want to think how it might duplicate a
Gaussian array since all elements are resonant and in equilibrium!
Theres a college book on the net where such an arrangement
was solved by the use of MANNA which proved that the Gaussian array
you are building
equates with Maxwell's Laws. Now that may make you rethink what has
been stated here
as you dig those holes
73s and good luck
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG





today was just too long working on clearing land for the new non-gaussian
80m 4-square here and i'm too tired to bother with this more tonight, so
have fun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please note that I agreed that I misspoke regarding the right hand
rule.
This statement somehow appeared only in the quoted text of David's.
Why that line did not show up in my actual reply I cannot explain.
I apologise for the error made in the first place and the right hand
rule
is still preserved
Art

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
- Show quoted text -
Because it's resonant at the desired frequency. This is the
basic form of a Gaussian antenna which is also the starting
point of a Yagi antenna if viewed as a single radiator
Art


so 'gaussian' == 'resonant'
why didn't you say so in the first place?
so a properly tuned yagi-uda array is a 'gaussian' antenna?

Art has obviously never designed or built a yagi. A yagi's driven
element is as likely to be resonant right at the design frequency when
seen as a separate element as a wet shoe. Sometimes it will be, but
don't bet on it.

tom
K0TAR

Dave wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 29 Jun, 17:12, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 29 Jun, 14:18, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:
Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we
may
yet
figure
out what this antenna is.
First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian
antenna?
Posting check
Art
Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and
the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where
each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state
where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other.
This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us.
This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium.
If
an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange
itself
to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by
equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles
shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its
surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of
particles
are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its
constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification
with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight,
reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to
give
an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way
can
be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three
dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces
involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG
but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to
be
radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in
equilibrium.
it
also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even
along
the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up
tighter
in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually.
even
a
wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and
voltages
based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's
orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire
summed
up
to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide
quoted
text -
- Show quoted text -
I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child
without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing
a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of
metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece
of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that
because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
David, let me talk about equilibrium a little bit more as the
lessons
learned
from many years on this newsgroup shows this to be a real stumbling
block.
For someone with a learned background there is a great emphasis on
the
mathematical side of proving concepts that were origional derived by
observation
of the universe where the student of the day concentrates more on
the
mathematical
aspect which is required for a non oral examination. Thus it is
natural for
such a student to equate the "equal" term in mathematics to the word
"equilibrium"
Equilibrium can be used as an "equal" sign but certainly not always
and again the
"equilibrium" term cannot be interchanged easily with the term
"equilibrium"
As the Russian has pointed out that we have altered the path of
science by being
led by mechanical machines in number crunching style where numbers
are
placed
into a grinder and where we examine the mix to see if anything
usefull
comes out
and where the computor is used to magnify possible paths where the
resulting
mix in general goes no where. You now have to put another hat on and
rely on
that bit by bit observations becomes a story and where bits are
missing you use
intuition to bridge the gap that is consistent with the theme. It is
later
that mathematics comes into the picture where we check to see if
there
is a
common realistic theme. Maxwell did this by collecting different
stories
and connected them by trails of a story into numbers and though he
saw
a
connection between a static sbject and a dynamic subject he never
accumulated
enough clues to develop a story to match the mathematics. What we
are
doing now
is going back in time using observations of the universe to form a
story even
tho the mathematical links are some what preknown as individual
parts
as those
observers of the past would do by deduction and without the use of a
computor
Hope that helps rather than confused you but we are retracing the
step
in the
past taken by Gauss.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Back to mowing the grass or.....coooo dee graaaar
but what is in equilibrium when this single resonant gaussian element
is
fed
with rf and is radiating?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
David, Now it is you that is jumping to fast.
Let us go back to the last place where you said not to fast.
We were looking at what is termed a Gaussian field with the standard
"pillbox"
where inside are located some statitic particles. Pick up a book
and bone up just in this area since this drawing is commonplace but
add to the drawing
an outline of two elements where the surface of which have the static
particle resting.
Gauss talks about this picture a lot but he was not aware of such
things as antennas
only static particles where we know better than that because elements
have static particles
that rest on the surface of conductive items on this earth and we will
want to deduce how these particles react when given an electrical
shock
since we know that most people jump when they come into contact with
it.
Bone up on Gausses law of staics and the pill box picture that one
associated with that law.
Don't forget that the elements that we are adding to this drawing is
in effect a bunch of gyroscopes
covered with static particles or what is called electrons at rest.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG
but on radiating antennas the electrons are not at rest. a static case
doesn't do me any good when i want to get a signal out to the world. so
when the electrons are being pushed and pulled back and forth on the
resonant elements, what is in equilibrium?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
True. But we have set up two elements in a state of equilibrium with a
static partical
resting on their surface He stated that all within the circle must be
in equilibrium.
We know the elements are resonant and in equilibrium together with the
static particles.
So now we are set to do exactly what Gauss did in formulating the
Gaussian law.
He projected two vectors from each element on to the pillbox and then
applied a jolt of electricity
to one of the elements and since both elements were in equilibrium
with each other one
can say in effect that a jolt was applied to the assembly as a whole.
Now we can use some more information that we have come across which is
that a jolt of electricity
produces two vectors per element.The jolt provides a vector force
along the length of each element at the same time and a vector at
right angles to the line of theelement. Both of these vectors provide
their own fields. With some sort of engineering background we can add
vectors to provide a single vector aimed somewhere in the middle of
the two vectors and at an angle to the element. Immediately we see
that if a jolt was applied to an element it will not be at right
angles to both elements as one would see if two elements were coupled
as per a Yagi so we will be looking at a different arrangement of
vectors that one would reasonably occur in terms of radiation as we
know it. This a deduction that we deduced from the vector direction
only since each vector is of zero length because the time length of
the jolt was less than nothing i.e.dt. So we have learned that when
power is applied to the assembly or array that the vector sum
of the both field vectors will be somewhere in between both vectors of
some magnitude depending on the time allotted for power to be applied
together with type of wave of the same power supply.
O.K. David. If I had placed a yagi inside the circle we would have
expected some sort of vector at right angles to the element to
represent coupling but for some reason this did not occurr
The reasons why there is a difference is that a yagi needs more time
for each element to react with others
even after the jolt stopped because it needs time to react with other
elements before the radiation journey begins . The other reason is
that we do know that a radiation vector is at right angles to the
radiating elements via coupling for a yagi. From this we know that we
are going to produce radiation in a different
radiation pattern to a yagi. Also a yagi cannot be used in this
instance because only the driven element
is resonant at the frequency in use and the entire array cannot be in
a state of equilibrium which is a requirement for proceding along the
lines of Gaussian law of statics.
Depending on your next question we are going to apply a jolt of power
to the array we have made of a specific length of time where the power
is of a specific wave for to look at how the fields are made.
Forgot to mention another observable and that is when the jolt of
power was supplied the race to the end of
each element created by the jolt resulted in a tie!
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG


you are jumping ahead to far again and this results in misunderstanding of
what you are saying. please go back to the single element and apply a jolt
to it and explain how it is in equilibrium. with 2 elements like you try to
explain it still doesn't make sense.



Why don't you guys trim a bit of this BS so we just see the last 10 or
so responses?

tom
K0TAR

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 30 Jun, 17:12, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 30 Jun, 15:59, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.com...
On 30 Jun, 14:32, "Dave" wrote:

"art" wrote in message
When this is done we know that two fields are
produced
around the element, one in the direction parallel to the applied
electrical
current and one at right angles to the flow of the electrical
current.
We thus can add two vectors to the dipole as we know the
directions
that they take.
With respect to the length of the vector the length must be zero
on
all accounts
because what we are comparing to i.e. Poyntings theorem does not
have
the metric of time.
However we do now have a conservative field with its vectors tho
of
zero
length and if we take a step further we can use just one vector in
the
region of 45 degrees as a summation of the original two vectors.
This provides a surprise.This is stating that the direction of
radiation
is not at right angles to the radiating element in it's natural
form!From this we can make our first deduction. When pursuing
a
given pure

How do you get the 2 perpendicular fields??

I don't know.
Is it this posting or some other posting that you are refering to?
Are you changing the subject?
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

my news reader seemed to be unhappy with such a long and deeply quoted
message.... so i snipped lots of it.

i am refering to the two field vectors you specify above. where are
the
parallel and perpendicular vectors developed?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I do not have two perpendicular vectors
I have one parallel to the radiator and one perpendicular
to the radiator. One vector is developed by the current
passing thru the radiator ie a electrical field.
The electrical field produces a magnetic field at right angles to
the electrical field . You can also see the vectors
a different way since you mentioned movement within the radiator
make up This provides a vector along the line of current flow.
The electrons lying on the surface are also propelled outwards
at right angles to the radiator because of the termoil
created by the electrical jolt to the densly packed particles
in equilibrium. Note the jolt is a electrical contact of an
instant of time and thus the turmoil created by this jolt
is not repetitive which because we are not adding the metric of time
We can only see the direction of the vectors but not their
values or length. These two vectors can be replaced by a single
vector residing inbetween the original vectors but since the
vectors are of zero length the exact angle of the replacement
vector cannot be determined i.e. the metric of time must be added
to the application to determine vector lengths.

Next to come....
The application of a time varing current to the conservative field
that we have just illustrated to make it a non conservative field
which creates a radiation field
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG

you can not have an electric field parallel to the radiator, that is
impossible. the electric field is perpendicular to the radiator. the
magnetic field is around the radiator in accordance with the right hand
rule
from the current flow.

Very true, I misspoke

you can not replace the combination of the electric and magnetic fields
with
another single vector in a macro sense. you can do the ExH at each point
as
in the Poynting vector, but it will not be a single macro vector that you
can point at and say it is in any particular direction over all.

The fields are created by the agitation of the particles in the
element due to the
jolt of electricity compressing the molecules. The jolt is directional
along the line
of the element. Because of this jolting action or disturbance of the
gravitational
center electrons are propelled from the surface of the element. These
electrons
are the static particles that we started of with Ofcourse these are
two force vectors
at right angles to each other BUT because we could not add the metric
of time we can only
add the vectors in directional form because of the absence of time one
cannot quantify
the value of the actual forces. Never the less we do know that if a
jolt of electricity
was applied for a small smidgeon of time two vector forces will occur.

a 'jolt' implies time varying. if you have time yo have time, if you don't
you have no jolt you have static... static and time varying don't mix.

and i just love the line about electrons being propelled from the surface of
the element, that is probably the most incorrect thing in the whole 20
questions. sorry art, but you just don't know what you are talking about,
and never will. go back to mechanical design, maybe you can figure out how
to keep elements from fluttering in the wind better than some of the
companies out there producing yagi's today.