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