back again art?? still stuck on 'equilibrium'??? 'equilibrium' is a nice
catch word. and yes, many 'masters' heartily believed that everything had
to be in 'equilibrium' with something or another. but we have come a long
way since then. there can be no energy flow between things in equilibrium,
and we all know there is energy flowing in antenna elements. if there
wasn't they wouldn't radiate. and we can directly measure it with current
and voltage probes. so while maybe the static case of coulomb's law may be
said to represent 'equilibrium', none of the others needs that... in fact
none of the others would exist if everything was in 'equilibrium'. the
current, curl, and d/dt parts of the equations are all a representation of
non-equilibrium conditions that must exist for those equations to be of any
use. so get out of the 19th century and into the 21st and join the rest of
us in the understanding of the dynamic world around us!

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
For full understanding of how Maxwells laws were generated one has to
check if eny proviso's were written in.
Ffor instance I suspect that there was a proviso for equilibrium in
every law thar Maxwell used for his summation ofr laws there was an
exceptance by all the masters that without equilibrium the who univere
would fall apart.
Some where along the line somebody deviated from this proviso and made
the assumption that at every point on a radiator can be seen as a sino
soidal current that causes radiation because the assumption was needed
to conform with Maxwells laws while ignoring the dictae of the masters
that the laws of the universe is bound by
by equilibrium so the assumption was conncocted to "solve" the 1/2
wave problem. Can anybody versed in the art point to one of the many
laws at his time were not based on equilibrium. In other words did any
of the work he used specifically addres things that were NOT in
equilibrium to justify its use for items not in equilibrium to
substantiate the use of Maxwells laws to derive its function. Being a
mechanical engineer I am not well informed
of all the doings of the masters
TIA
Art KB9MZ

On 23 Sep, 10:54, "Dave" wrote:
back again art?? still stuck on 'equilibrium'??? 'equilibrium' is a nice
catch word. and yes, many 'masters' heartily believed that everything had
to be in 'equilibrium' with something or another. but we have come a long
way since then. there can be no energy flow between things in equilibrium,
and we all know there is energy flowing in antenna elements. if there
wasn't they wouldn't radiate. and we can directly measure it with current
and voltage probes. so while maybe the static case of coulomb's law may be
said to represent 'equilibrium', none of the others needs that... in fact
none of the others would exist if everything was in 'equilibrium'. the
current, curl, and d/dt parts of the equations are all a representation of
non-equilibrium conditions that must exist for those equations to be of any
use. so get out of the 19th century and into the 21st and join the rest of
us in the understanding of the dynamic world around us!

"art" wrote in message

ups.com...



For full understanding of how Maxwells laws were generated one has to
check if eny proviso's were written in.
Ffor instance I suspect that there was a proviso for equilibrium in
every law thar Maxwell used for his summation ofr laws there was an
exceptance by all the masters that without equilibrium the who univere
would fall apart.
Some where along the line somebody deviated from this proviso and made
the assumption that at every point on a radiator can be seen as a sino
soidal current that causes radiation because the assumption was needed
to conform with Maxwells laws while ignoring the dictae of the masters
that the laws of the universe is bound by
by equilibrium so the assumption was conncocted to "solve" the 1/2
wave problem. Can anybody versed in the art point to one of the many
laws at his time were not based on equilibrium. In other words did any
of the work he used specifically addres things that were NOT in
equilibrium to justify its use for items not in equilibrium to
substantiate the use of Maxwells laws to derive its function. Being a
mechanical engineer I am not well informed
of all the doings of the masters
TIA
Art KB9MZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well David my checks on books on the subject that revealed that all
Maxwells laws
conform to standard boundary conditions. When I started enlarging the
static law of statics I was cogniscent of the fact that the same
boundary conditions must exist to maintain plausability. This forced
me to make sure that the additions within the boundary must not alter
the boundary aproach. I could not uset 1/2 wave antennas be3cause that
violates the laws laid down by Maxwell in all his laws so I used full
wave radiators to continue, after all it xcannot be a law if you have
to make asumptions. I applied a time varying field to make it dynamic
so that it conforms to Maxwell
laws Thus in effect my aproach should be considerfed law
Now we come back to existing aproaches of present day scientists and
they have chosen to ignore the required conditions and in its place
started to apply assumption which you are not allowed to do with laws
only theories. Scientists and others further violated existing laws
ala Maxwells laws which are based upon equiulibrium in all cases and
used it where it is not applicable.
Now all computor programs are based around Maxwells LAWS so how come
it is used in violation of those same laws?
I followed the boundary laws in my expansion of Gaussian law where the
results conform to Maxwell and as I have described earlier the tank
cuicuit is the result but without having to make assumptions
assumptions because I abided by LAW. At the same time it clearly
prooves that asuumptions made by scientists and programmers are
clearly in error of itself. Since I like to do things from first
principles it was my responserbilty to ask electrical people and those
familiar with the state of the art that the principles I used were
"not out of date" ie now revised. One response came from a ham with a
Doctorate working for MIT. He clearly stated that mathematics support
my approach and showed how they were in conformance with Maxwells
LAWS. Nobody concurred with his finding and none supplied reasons why
except that 'you can't do that'! So until somebody of stature
challenges his confirmation I stand my ground. Now W7el is making a
living from programs that are applying Maxwells LAWS to items within a
boundary that are NOT in equilibrium which is INCORRECT. Others by the
way deny the existance
of boundary Laws ala equilibrium as if it does not mean anything.
Ofcourse programmers say I only copied what the government released
ala if it is printed in a book it must be correct so perhaps there is
a computor programmer around as to why he continous to use erroneos
methods for programming with respect to radiators!
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 23 Sep, 10:54, "Dave" wrote:
back again art?? still stuck on 'equilibrium'??? 'equilibrium' is a
nice
catch word. and yes, many 'masters' heartily believed that everything
had
to be in 'equilibrium' with something or another. but we have come a
long
way since then. there can be no energy flow between things in
equilibrium,
and we all know there is energy flowing in antenna elements. if there
wasn't they wouldn't radiate. and we can directly measure it with
current
and voltage probes. so while maybe the static case of coulomb's law may
be
said to represent 'equilibrium', none of the others needs that... in fact
none of the others would exist if everything was in 'equilibrium'. the
current, curl, and d/dt parts of the equations are all a representation
of
non-equilibrium conditions that must exist for those equations to be of
any
use. so get out of the 19th century and into the 21st and join the rest
of
us in the understanding of the dynamic world around us!

"art" wrote in message

ups.com...



For full understanding of how Maxwells laws were generated one has to
check if eny proviso's were written in.
Ffor instance I suspect that there was a proviso for equilibrium in
every law thar Maxwell used for his summation ofr laws there was an
exceptance by all the masters that without equilibrium the who univere
would fall apart.
Some where along the line somebody deviated from this proviso and made
the assumption that at every point on a radiator can be seen as a sino
soidal current that causes radiation because the assumption was needed
to conform with Maxwells laws while ignoring the dictae of the masters
that the laws of the universe is bound by
by equilibrium so the assumption was conncocted to "solve" the 1/2
wave problem. Can anybody versed in the art point to one of the many
laws at his time were not based on equilibrium. In other words did any
of the work he used specifically addres things that were NOT in
equilibrium to justify its use for items not in equilibrium to
substantiate the use of Maxwells laws to derive its function. Being a
mechanical engineer I am not well informed
of all the doings of the masters
TIA
Art KB9MZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well David my checks on books on the subject that revealed that all
Maxwells laws
conform to standard boundary conditions. When I started enlarging the
static law of statics I was cogniscent of the fact that the same
boundary conditions must exist to maintain plausability. This forced
me to make sure that the additions within the boundary must not alter
the boundary aproach. I could not uset 1/2 wave antennas be3cause that
violates the laws laid down by Maxwell in all his laws so I used full
wave radiators to continue, after all it xcannot be a law if you have
to make asumptions. I applied a time varying field to make it dynamic
so that it conforms to Maxwell
laws Thus in effect my aproach should be considerfed law
Now we come back to existing aproaches of present day scientists and
they have chosen to ignore the required conditions and in its place
started to apply assumption which you are not allowed to do with laws
only theories. Scientists and others further violated existing laws
ala Maxwells laws which are based upon equiulibrium in all cases and
used it where it is not applicable.
Now all computor programs are based around Maxwells LAWS so how come
it is used in violation of those same laws?
I followed the boundary laws in my expansion of Gaussian law where the
results conform to Maxwell and as I have described earlier the tank
cuicuit is the result but without having to make assumptions
assumptions because I abided by LAW. At the same time it clearly
prooves that asuumptions made by scientists and programmers are
clearly in error of itself. Since I like to do things from first
principles it was my responserbilty to ask electrical people and those
familiar with the state of the art that the principles I used were
"not out of date" ie now revised. One response came from a ham with a
Doctorate working for MIT. He clearly stated that mathematics support
my approach and showed how they were in conformance with Maxwells
LAWS. Nobody concurred with his finding and none supplied reasons why
except that 'you can't do that'! So until somebody of stature
challenges his confirmation I stand my ground. Now W7el is making a
living from programs that are applying Maxwells LAWS to items within a
boundary that are NOT in equilibrium which is INCORRECT. Others by the
way deny the existance
of boundary Laws ala equilibrium as if it does not mean anything.
Ofcourse programmers say I only copied what the government released
ala if it is printed in a book it must be correct so perhaps there is
a computor programmer around as to why he continous to use erroneos
methods for programming with respect to radiators!
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG


ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in the
existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the equations that
make your law different than his. if you can't do that, its no better than
a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a paper, get it
published and show the rest of the world that uses those equations and gets
perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in the
existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the equations that
make your law different than his. if you can't do that, its no better than
a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a paper, get it
published and show the rest of the world that uses those equations and gets
perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage
to make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.

On Sep 23, 6:10 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...

Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.

I'd ignore him. The moron can't even read properly...
I see no text written where you tell Art to shut up, or even write at
a lighter
shade of print for that matter..
I think "John Smith", or "Bret", or whoever the heck he really is,
would prefer
that Art brainwash all the unsuspecting readers into thinking what he
writes
is true fact without question. Who cares if it's total BS or not, it's
new!
"John Smith" doesn't care if it's all BS or not, just as long as it's
some
new theory that seems to contradict old established theory.
He has shown repeated disdain for proven established theory.
He thinks that being most that wrote it are either dead, or in an
advanced
age state, that obviously it can't fit in with the "New World Order"
of
code toads that dabble with antennas on occasion.
After all, most lived decades ago. What could they possibly know
compared to a code toad that is living in the early part of the 21st
century?

I envision him as the type that probably believes most of what he
hears on
Coast to Coast AM..

Did I mention that he's a prime time smartass?
Probably not needed, being you got a taste first hand.
Don't worry about looking like an idiot. Anyone with half a brain can
see where that dubious honor really belongs..
It might have to be shared by two people though... :/
But at least Art is not really a smartass. I'll give him that.. He's
just
confused... I have much less problem with that, than I do a smartass.
Art is confusing the minds of new or unsuspecting readers with all
his "theory" though. Thats why he gets so much flak.
Some of his stuff makes the "EH" antenna guy actually look sane
by comparison.. And thats kinda scary... :/
MK

wrote:

I'd ignore him. The moron can't even read properly...
I see no text written where you tell Art to shut up, or even write at
a lighter
shade of print for that matter..
I think "John Smith", or "Bret", or whoever the heck he really is,
would prefer
that Art brainwash all the unsuspecting readers into thinking what he
writes
is true fact without question. Who cares if it's total BS or not, it's
new!
"John Smith" doesn't care if it's all BS or not, just as long as it's
some
new theory that seems to contradict old established theory.
He has shown repeated disdain for proven established theory.
He thinks that being most that wrote it are either dead, or in an
advanced
age state, that obviously it can't fit in with the "New World Order"
of
code toads that dabble with antennas on occasion.
After all, most lived decades ago. What could they possibly know
compared to a code toad that is living in the early part of the 21st
century?

I envision him as the type that probably believes most of what he
hears on
Coast to Coast AM..

Did I mention that he's a prime time smartass?
Probably not needed, being you got a taste first hand.
Don't worry about looking like an idiot. Anyone with half a brain can
see where that dubious honor really belongs..
It might have to be shared by two people though... :/
But at least Art is not really a smartass. I'll give him that.. He's
just
confused... I have much less problem with that, than I do a smartass.
Art is confusing the minds of new or unsuspecting readers with all
his "theory" though. Thats why he gets so much flak.
Some of his stuff makes the "EH" antenna guy actually look sane
by comparison.. And thats kinda scary... :/
MK


Idiots never cease to amaze me--and OMG, there is a NEVER ENDING SUPPLY!

PLONK

JS

On 23 Sep, 16:10, "Dave" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...



Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull. A ham who holds a doctorate and works for MIT provided the
corroberating details.
It is not my fault that your mathematical knoweledge and education
could not keep up with him which is the same for all others on the
thread. Nobody but nobody could fault his mathematics and you call
that just "hand waving"?
David it was you who led the charge and consistently stated that you
can't apply a time varient to a static field and refused to
acknowledge that the math supplied that concurred with Maxwells laws
relying only on the fact that it came from your own mouth so it must
be correct. Now that I call "handwaving" all mouth and no facts
proffered to confirm your opinions or guesstimates. Now you say you
should be able to take a "challenge" well I invite any scientifically
based challenge some thing I have hoped for in a long while from the
self professeed experts and am still waiting.
I can understand opinions from hobbiests you have joined the ranks of
ham radio but for those skilled in the art and have gone thru the
reqimen of getting a degree or obtaining the rights of a professional
engineer one would expect a more factual debate on the subject. If you
don't understand the subject then you default your right to critisize.
Now I have Richard firing his nonsense across my bow with the
credentials of a degree in geography that trumps all others in the
hope that he can get somebody to talk to him.
Have a happy day to all
Art Unwin KB9MZ......ex UK.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:45:00 -0700, art wrote:

Now I have Richard firing his nonsense across my bow with the
credentials of a degree in geography that trumps all others in the
hope that he can get somebody to talk to him.

Seems to have worked ;-)

Oh, by the way, it is a degree in English (you know, the country you
hate - now THATS geography).

By the by, I see you still lean on MIT who left here misquoting
Feynman and having mixed up his math (at least you both can have a
reunion when your next anniversary comes up).

Can I anticipate another sob story about how wicked we are here? (Boy,
those "gentlemen of eham" sure stomped your ego.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 23 Sep, 16:10, "Dave" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...



Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do
that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write
a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage
to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite
obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when
you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown
himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in
terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull. A ham who holds a doctorate and works for MIT provided the
corroberating details.
It is not my fault that your mathematical knoweledge and education
could not keep up with him which is the same for all others on the
thread. Nobody but nobody could fault his mathematics and you call
that just "hand waving"?
David it was you who led the charge and consistently stated that you
can't apply a time varient to a static field and refused to
acknowledge that the math supplied that concurred with Maxwells laws
relying only on the fact that it came from your own mouth so it must
be correct. Now that I call "handwaving" all mouth and no facts
proffered to confirm your opinions or guesstimates. Now you say you
should be able to take a "challenge" well I invite any scientifically
based challenge some thing I have hoped for in a long while from the
self professeed experts and am still waiting.
I can understand opinions from hobbiests you have joined the ranks of
ham radio but for those skilled in the art and have gone thru the
reqimen of getting a degree or obtaining the rights of a professional
engineer one would expect a more factual debate on the subject. If you
don't understand the subject then you default your right to critisize.
Now I have Richard firing his nonsense across my bow with the
credentials of a degree in geography that trumps all others in the
hope that he can get somebody to talk to him.
Have a happy day to all
Art Unwin KB9MZ......ex UK.


ah well art... i guess i have riled you up enough this time, its not any fun
any more though. you don't have anything new to offer, just pointing to old
discreditted information and posts that don't exist. I have quoted enough
of my credentials that by now you should know i can follow whatever math you
may throw up, or puke up as the case may be, on this forum. and i'm not
going to bother to go search for your mythical patents and papers any more,
publish the full links here or forever be labeled a faker.