Maxwells laws
 

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

Maxwells laws
 

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:33:14 -0700, art wrote:

one has to
check if eny proviso's were written in.
Ffor instance I suspect

Hi Arthru,

Which, of course, means you didn't check. A flash of ignorance is
hardly an ignition point to start a thread with - but it does provide
suitable tender for a flame. :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Maxwells laws
 

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

Maxwells laws
 

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

Maxwells laws
 

"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.

Maxwells laws
 

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

Maxwells laws
 

"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.

Maxwells laws
 

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

Maxwells laws
 

On 23 Sep, 14:31, "Dave" wrote:
"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

roups.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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sooner or later you will have to act your age.
The tank circuit is a electrical circuit that is also the circuit
of a full wave radiator regardless of how the extended mathematics and
my work
portrays. It clearly shows that release of energy by shorting the
energy source
is how an efficient radiating system works i.e two energy sources
continuing a pendulum swing
as it were. Attack that if you wish since the books validate that
without reference to equilibrium or Gauss.
It stands on its own. If you end feed a folded full wave length dipole
you will get an answer that Maxwells laws will verify and was tried
out by a guy named Frank who I do not know using NEC 4 antenna
computing program and found to be correct. Nobody but nobody has
presented anything that point out errors in any of this.
Now I come to the second point. I would have thought that radiation of
a 1/2 wave dipole would concurr with that of
a full wave end fed radiator but it doesn't. Why is that? When I try
to feed it at the end voltage becomes a problem
as there is no energy receptical available which is illustrated by the
socalled end effects where the voltage has nowhere to go but into the
atmosphere directly with it being contained to a specific frequence
given by the radiators
length so certainly it does not connect with the tank circuit of a
full wave.
So now we can also take a look at the electrical circuit of a half
wave end fed radiator where we come up with a series circuit but no
evidence of what starts the radiation and in fact the circuit has none
of the character istics shown by the tank circuit and does not provide
any clues as to what creats radiation, this all experts agree upon.
Nobody but nobody has ever been able to describe radiation.
Now based on the parallel circuit I profer the following. Static
particles are allowed to rest on diagmatic materials
and possibly paramagnetic materials each of which cannot retain a
magnetic field. All other materials are bound with specific electrons
that repulse static particles. From the same gaussian laws which when
expanded the way I stated
is directly related to present dynamic laws such that on a full length
radiator there are particles at rest and I might add decaying.It is
reasonable to assume that the instant release of energy overcomes the
inertia of the static particles and push them awayby fracturing the
arbitary field. Those that do not escape return to the radiator
surface
which is now fully occupied with static particles thus forcing the
particle to burrow under the surface providing skin effect of decay.
The next release of energy does the same thing but fracture or
penetrates the arbitary border at a different place producing
radiation other than that of a planar array or any other array not in
equilibrium.
As for the half wave there is nothing that suggests any similarity to
the tank circuit, no suggestion that energy release is from two energy
sources but evidence that there is not one to contain the voltage
swings/.
Now the tank circuit shows that beyond the frequency band edges there
is a strong dip in filter pass abilities so the radiation is retained
within a certain spectrum. In a series circuit the spectrum does not
have a pass filter
and infact the end effect is really the escape of energy to the
atmosphere without a containment within the desired frequency spectrum
so clearly it is not operating efficiently which also suggests that
the driven energy is not fully matched to the impedance of the antenna
itself which again suggests that because it not resonate in circuit
terms the feed line is invaded to correct the situation.
So be my guest. End feed a half wave radiator and a endfed full wave
radiator and then compare.
The new shortened antenna from the university of R.I. is a good place
to start where those who are familiar with the state of the art state
that the feed line has been forced to become a part of the antenna so
one has to look at SYSTEM as a whole. Now using the same antenna the
wire does not stop at the top but comes down to the starting point
by winding in a contra wound direction such the radiator is a full
wave length and in equilibrium and by strentch the height of the
radiator to remove any stray capacitance that has been added (since
the LC ratio of an antenna must be held to) you will find that the new
radiator is balanced (in equilibrium), has no end effects and does not
extend the circuit to the feed lines and has the same impedance and
volume of the original short antenna but with more gain.
With all the above I rest my case especially since nobody has refuted
any of it in scientific terms which includes mathematics.
Isn't life good when things come to a successful end such that the
time has come around again as it always does to throw the old books
away of past generations and go with books of the new generation?
Best regards to all
Art Unwin..KB9MZ..... ex UK

Maxwells laws
 

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.

Maxwells laws
 

snip
Isn't life good when things come to a successful end such that the
time has come around again as it always does to throw the old books
away of past generations and go with books of the new generation?
Best regards to all
Art Unwin..KB9MZ..... ex UK


Art
Science is about building on the foundations of the past and not about
throwing away books. The old methods of calculation still work fine, its
just that in the light of new knowledge we can refine the methods to produce
more accurate results. All of our achievements to date have been built on
the foundations laid down by past generations and it is foolish and
dangerous to dismiss or ignore any part of history. Never, ever throw away a
book - well maybe the ones by Catherine Cookson et al :-)
Regards
Mike G0ULI

Maxwells laws
 

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:21:29 -0700, art wrote:

Isn't life good when things come to a successful end such that the
time has come around again as it always does to throw the old books
away of past generations and go with books of the new generation?

Are you quoting Gobbels now?

This "golden city on the hill" fluff hardly describes any antenna of
remarkable ability. The alternative is so much misty eyed and fond
desires (superstition) like a pre-teen girl's scribbling into her
diary.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Maxwells laws
 

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

Maxwells laws
 

Maxwells laws
 

art wrote:

...
Art Unwin..KB9MZ..... ex UK


Art:

Although I may, or may not, agree or share your exact visions,
questions, assumptions, etc., only fools move to stop discussion,
debate, experimentation and new ideas. I think it is quite
apparent--for every one success a man will ask a thousand questions--try
a thousand things. The easy stuff has all been done--the more difficult
lays before us. Those before us never thought they left a completed
work but only wished for others to follow behind them and further their
thought, experiments and discovery.

Hang in their, almost every concept we now accept (until better presents
itself) was scoffed at and belittled, men have been imprisoned, and
worse for even challenging accepted principals and thinking ...

Hang in their, asking questions has never hurt. Just choose those more
capable to interact with. Interacting with self-important morons never
bears fruit ... and you know about news groups.

Regards,
JS

Maxwells laws
 

On 23 Sep, 18:22, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:

...

Art Unwin..KB9MZ..... ex UK

Art:

Although I may, or may not, agree or share your exact visions,
questions, assumptions, etc., only fools move to stop discussion,
debate, experimentation and new ideas. I think it is quite
apparent--for every one success a man will ask a thousand questions--try
a thousand things. The easy stuff has all been done--the more difficult
lays before us. Those before us never thought they left a completed
work but only wished for others to follow behind them and further their
thought, experiments and discovery.

Hang in their, almost every concept we now accept (until better presents
itself) was scoffed at and belittled, men have been imprisoned, and
worse for even challenging accepted principals and thinking ...

Hang in their, asking questions has never hurt. Just choose those more
capable to interact with. Interacting with self-important morons never
bears fruit ... and you know about news groups.

Regards,
JS

Fully understood. Odd thing is that 73 magazine used to make a good
living by printing details of various antenna
building and I admit I built a few of them.Ihave described the
modifications needed for the new university antenna and for some
reason see no reason to build it because it is a dud. I know you built
the university antenna to check it out for yourself but I don't know
of anybody who did the same thing to verify the claim. So it goes for
the simple modification I supplied which if I am wrong gives loads of
ammunition to every body to shoot me down once and for all with
factual details but they seam scared to search for the truth. In the
absence of knoweledge usually resort to insults and name calling and I
see you got such a burst today. Remember that time when a guy appeared
with his new NEC 4 program and wanted to model a simple arrray I
supplied? Nobody would help him in checking things out and it took a
personal E mail from somebody who did not want to be identified to
help him with the proper useage of the program. It proved the veracity
of what I had supplied dispite the lachof assistance to prove me
wrong.
As yet nobody with knoweledge of the state of the art has taken me on
with respectto what I have discovered. I have had posts given where I
believe the central theme was poetry, others who said they couldn't
understand despite posts given by a Doctrate holder, ofcourse there
are many like the blasting that you just got which should invite back
the multi posters that decimated several newsgroups. What I am doing
is sharing my work so all can enjoy but if hams are satisfied with
lesser antennas because of the poor conditions so be it. But to try
and stop thespreading of a particular advance to protect their so
called resumes as being experts is really hard to fathom. I thought it
would be a delight to all if somebody refuted the mathematics given
but only silence reigned and then joined by name calling. Look at
todays posting, how many were devoid of insults and name calling, I
think that they finished up in the majority so what does that say
antenna talk by hams?
I am beginning to wonder with the spectrum being in such demand if the
FCC would be justified in selling the amateur frequencies since it is
certainly not the same when the frequencies were given, a listen to
repeaters or a review of newsgroups going ons must fraustrate them
very much. After the upcomming sale of frequencies which is in demand
by industry I can easily see pressure on ham frequencies which is
costing not contributing to the coffers. The idea that we are a public
necessity was down graded years ago by industries inovative ideas so
hams have a hard time now justifying their position. In the past it
was often said that it was amatures that advanced the cusp of the
science well we sure are not doing that now!
O well let the discussion move away from mathematical analysis of
antennas or new designs and get back to argueing and calling people
names e.t.c. so all can participate including those who are true
hobbyist that do not wish to concern themselves with the engineering
background but who also want to participate in the augument side that
most hams relish.
Have a happy day and goodnight
Art Unwin KB9MZ...ex UK

Maxwells laws
 

art wrote:

...
Have a happy day and goodnight
Art Unwin KB9MZ...ex UK


Art:

Let me cut though this BS--straight to the chase; this group would be
better renamed to rec.radio.amateur.EZNEC

If eznec doesn't OK it--it just won't work; All which exists here are
eznec-appliance users.

However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

Regards,
JS

Maxwells laws
 

"art" wrote in message
The tank circuit is a electrical circuit that is also the circuit
of a full wave radiator regardless of how the extended mathematics
and my work portrays. It clearly shows that release of energy by
shorting the energy source is how an efficient radiating system
works i.e two energy sources continuing a pendulum swing
as it were. Attack that if you wish since the books validate that
without reference to equilibrium or Gauss.
Much clippage, then
With all the above I rest my case especially since nobody has
refuted any of it in scientific terms which includes mathematics.
________

And, Art, you haven't posted the mathematics to prove or even illustrate
what you believe about this -- which would be valuable to you, as your
beliefs are so different from antenna engineering practice and field
experience.

You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Maxwells laws
 

On 24 Sep, 04:15, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote in message
The tank circuit is a electrical circuit that is also the circuit
of a full wave radiator regardless of how the extended mathematics
and my work portrays. It clearly shows that release of energy by
shorting the energy source is how an efficient radiating system
works i.e two energy sources continuing a pendulum swing
as it were. Attack that if you wish since the books validate that
without reference to equilibrium or Gauss.
Much clippage, then
With all the above I rest my case especially since nobody has
refuted any of it in scientific terms which includes mathematics.

________

And, Art, you haven't posted the mathematics to prove or even illustrate
what you believe about this -- which would be valuable to you, as your
beliefs are so different from antenna engineering practice and field
experience.

You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Already done all that on this newsgroup. Sweep for Gauss or gaussian
and it will get you up to date
Regards
Art

Maxwells laws
 

John Smith wrote:
However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Maxwells laws
 

On 24 Sep, 06:03, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
However, to some who have already built antennas which work, contrary to
eznecs claim they won't, it is quite obvious current beliefs, equations,
charts, theories, etc. are in some degree of error ...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I have gonedown that road also in the past. As one programmer stated
Antenna programs are not perfect and neither are you. They do not
adhere to Maxwells laws
because some have taken the libity to insert assumptions when things
don't work out.
Mathematicians usually find a constant to insert if they are not sure
of mathematical difference
or their mods don't work. You can do that with a theory because it has
not been confirmed but an electrical LAW
stands alone as being correct as it stands. Just imagine using Ohms
law with a fudge factor inserted where you have to insert a fuse to
take care of it! Even when dealing with superconductors there are
numurous provisos with respect to an ifnittessimle length that are
"solved with mathematical technics. With my amateur thesis that is on
plus other letters and attillas I wrote down the tears
that the head of the nuclear industry in Russia stated with the
reliance on the computors ability to do multiple equations every
minuite of the dayin the hope that one answer fits the bill or at
least it will if you add constants where it deviates from what you
want!
However the assumptions used in this case finally worked out for 100
years and where it doesn't work
in the present computor era then you didn't follow the restrictions
that come with adding assumptions

Maxwells laws
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?

Cecil:

My statement was a little bold; I take it back. Not all here are stuck
in the same rut. It is just sometimes I feel I am in a room full of
children, you have to shout now and then just to get some order to the
dominant personalities.

You realize, I am sure, my bark is much worse than the bite ...

Sorry. :-(

Regards,
JS

Maxwells laws
 

On 24 Sep, 08:08, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

...

I personally have never had a QSO using a simulated
antenna. :-)

It also works the other way. By accidentally violating
the modeling guidelines, I came up with a simulated
omnidirectional antenna with 24 dBi gain. Want to build
that one?

Cecil:

My statement was a little bold; I take it back. Not all here are stuck
in the same rut. It is just sometimes I feel I am in a room full of
children, you have to shout now and then just to get some order to the
dominant personalities.

You realize, I am sure, my bark is much worse than the bite ...

Sorry. :-(

Regards,
JS

John you are preaching to the converted! Cecil is known for standing
his ground
on technical matters despite the howls and catcalling. His posts
easily exceed a hundred or so
because he rarely get a reasonable technical response in this group.
That ofcourse takes a lot of tenaccity and visits to the texas
university library and I could never do that because the group would
attack the library contents. I prefer to hammer on the same subject a
bit over time for several years as you can see in the archives on
Gaussian antenna, this seasons you to laughing at the comments instead
of taking it personal because it becomes obvious what the technical
level is of the poster. No problem hobbiest having thought and
theories and stories of magnificent performance of a wire that rests
in a gutter and then drops to the ground so that they are part of ham
radio that produces statement that "my antenna is best because every
thing I hear I can work" Or "every thing is known about antennas"! or"
we already have good antennas so why do we need to know how they
work". But when they take on a technical mantle without the require
engineering regimen it can be very very funny.
Regards
Art

Maxwells laws
 

art wrote:

...
work". But when they take on a technical mantle without the require
engineering regimen it can be very very funny.
Regards
Art

Art:

Far too many times, I have been present during discussions where a
"newbie" (one not well schooled in the amateur-antenna-religious-order)
discusses some weird idea(s) he proposes to set in aluminum/copper and
insulation. And, far too often I have seen him discouraged and "converted."

What the heck, let 'em try it, someone just may hit the lotto!--but
then, I have seen the "hidden errors" in current knowledge.

Frankly, I love the fact data/knowledge exists which has been so
explored as to let us, immediately, construct "canned antennas" with
excellent performance characteristics (or at least functional/usable
characteristics.)

Is it so difficult to allow some to explore less conventional designs,
methods, ideas, experiments? From what I have seen, most who explore
these "dark arts" have already explored commonly constructed antennas
and yearn for some diversion (or, perhaps wish something for a special
purpose--for example stealth!)

For those who walk to the beat of a different drummer--I'll keep the
light on for 'ya, 'ya all hear? Just have the fortitude to take the
slings and arrows ...

Regards,
JS

Maxwells laws
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 24 Sep, 04:15, "Richard Fry" wrote:
You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific
methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Already done all that on this newsgroup. Sweep for Gauss or gaussian
and it will get you up to date.
___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF

Maxwells laws
 

Richard Fry wrote:

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF


"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein

From he

http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html

You act as if math is the oracle which tells no lies--has no false
visions ...

Uncounted times, math is reshuffled to come into line with present
knowledge--the reverse has NEVER happened--at least not to my knowledge.

Regards,
JS

Maxwells laws
 

And, Art, you haven't posted the mathematics to prove or even illustrate
what you believe about this -- which would be valuable to you, as your
beliefs are so different from antenna engineering practice and field
experience.

You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific
methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Already done all that on this newsgroup. Sweep for Gauss or gaussian
and it will get you up to date
Regards
Art

Can you provide the exact link? The first 20 pages of Google cannot
find the reference.

Regards,

Frank

Maxwells laws
 

John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF


"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein


So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna, but facts that only make for almost
impossible to read text in a Usenet group?

It doesn't define one as close minded to note that extraordinary claims
require proof at the same level.

wouldn't simple proof be a lot easier than declaring all who disagree as
enemies of one sort or another?

Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

Proof would shut us close minded ones up would it not? Then the antenna
will become status quo, and we will rush to defend it.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Maxwells laws
 

On 24 Sep, 10:04, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein

So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna,

SNIP
I would go with that one if I were you so you keep apace of your
knoweledge level.
You could look in the archives for this year and look up the "Davis"
mathematical
solutions contribution once in a while so that you can upgrade in the
future
You can work everything that you hear now so hang around until
somebody makes the one I suggested
but then they may be competition minded and not tell you of the work
they have done for themselves!
Art

Maxwells laws
 

On 24 Sep, 08:54, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com... On 24 Sep, 04:15, "Richard Fry" wrote:
You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific
methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Already done all that on this newsgroup. Sweep for Gauss or gaussian
and it will get you up to date.

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF

Sorry to hear that Dr Davis must have removed his comments and data
after the group teed him off
one too many times. They are in my ongoing patent requests so sooner
or later they will
come to light again. I think I may have reproduced it on the
pages but I am not sure.
Ofcourse I did have some of my work overchecked on this by professor
with a P.E. who did it via NEC 4 before I placed my first patent
request since each request at the PTO is around $500 and that is only
the beginning costs
so it pays to have the basics reviewed without your presence so you
are not throwing money away' especially if you have a series of
patents going thru based on the original discovery.
Art Unwin KB9MZ
Art

Maxwells laws
 

art wrote:
On 24 Sep, 10:04, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:
___________
All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.
RF
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna,

SNIP
I would go with that one if I were you so you keep apace of your
knoweledge level.

Sheesh, Art. How come every one who questions you is some kind of
dullard, or worse? Even those who aren't questioning you, such as
myself. Your antenna might be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm
not saying it isn't, I'm saying show me.

It must be an interesting world where only those who agree with you are
intelligent or clever, and all those who have the temerity to even ask
questions, wanting proof, are not.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Maxwells laws
 

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:40:44 -0700, art wrote:

I think I may have reproduced it on the
pages but I am not sure.

Hi Arthru,

"Not sure" seems to be the keyword. Lack of details, lack of
background, lack of examples, and lack of understanding (no shortage
of ersatz thinking) reveals to others what is not obvious to you:
an email address is not a web page

But we all know what you don't mean. :-0

Yes, it must be tough to be a towering generous in exotic theries when
you stumble so often from tying your gaussian shoelaces together.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Maxwells laws
 

On 24 Sep, 11:23, Michael Coslo wrote:
art wrote:
On 24 Sep, 10:04, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:
___________
All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.
RF
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna,

SNIP
I would go with that one if I were you so you keep apace of your
knoweledge level.

Sheesh, Art. How come every one who questions you is some kind of
dullard, or worse? Even those who aren't questioning you, such as
myself. Your antenna might be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm
not saying it isn't, I'm saying show me.

It must be an interesting world where only those who agree with you are
intelligent or clever, and all those who have the temerity to even ask
questions, wanting proof, are not.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Michael from the past I was called every name under the sun on
past patents
This time I gave the basis of the mathematics, I gave a array of full
wave
elements that was checked independently on this newsnet. I also put
up a page
with the data and drawings from a static field ala Gauss on to a
dynamic form
where it can be verivied by computor programs.
All I got was jeers and insults there is nothing more that I can do
other what I have done
I can't make you make one even with instructions and I am not giving
out gifts.
Oh and you got the benefit of Dr Davis's mathematical analysis to boot
before the group dissed him to.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG

Maxwells laws
 

art wrote:
That of course takes a lot of tenaccity and visits to the texas
university library ...

Now you've really got my dander up, Art.
It's the Texas Aggie library. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Maxwells laws
 

"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.

Maxwells laws
 

John Smith wrote:
Uncounted times, math is reshuffled to come into line with present
knowledge--the reverse has NEVER happened--at least not to my knowledge.

Actually, the reverse has happened several times now
in quantum physics. The math (standard model) has predicted
bizarre, seemingly impossible things, e.g. entanglement
(Einstein's spooky action at a distance) which was later
proved by experiments to be a fact of reality.

You can find some pretty brilliant physicists who will
state that the QEM model has never been wrong no matter
how unbelievable the predictions.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Maxwells laws
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

Proof would shut us close minded ones up would it not? Then the
antenna will become status quo, and we will rush to defend it.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

A million visions hit me where the status quo is unusable--college
dorms, hotel rooms, camping grounds in national forests,
secure-elite-gated communities where "keeping up with the joneses" is in
vogue (and, I am stuck in one--for a bit anyway :-( ), a beach, etc., etc.

I have already stated, canned antennas and the software to define them
have a REAL place ... it is only the idiots who shout down everyone else
who are in question! Personally, I need the art of small/stealth
antennas to expand ... I can't believe I am the only one; I am just
more vocal to their importance.

I have already had complaints about the American Flag flying on my 50
ft. pole, so far, NOT flying the flag has appeased the "complainers"--go
figure! Any day now, they will eventually notice the pole is still
there. Then I'll be stuck with the DLM posing as a drain pipe ...

And, there are errors and missing sections in our complete understanding
of antennas, em/photon radiation, etc.--those who will bother to examine
the evidence already know this--those who are either unable or unwilling
to do so never will.

Regards,
JS

Maxwells laws
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Actually, the reverse has happened several times now
in quantum physics. The math (standard model) has predicted
bizarre, seemingly impossible things, e.g. entanglement
(Einstein's spooky action at a distance) which was later
proved by experiments to be a fact of reality.

You can find some pretty brilliant physicists who will
state that the QEM model has never been wrong no matter
how unbelievable the predictions.

Cecil:

How come I already knew you would be first to propose an argument worthy
of consideration/debate? :-)

I spoke boldly, and of course, in too broad of terms--the reasons for
such I have already stated.

However, even Einstein would admit (well, if he would allow me to speak
for him) that there is "something too all this, alright. However, by
the shear lack of a simple model to explain it all--we still are only
seeing the tail on the elephant ..."

And, by the way, thanks for the wakeup call.

Warm regards,
JS

Maxwells laws
 

On Sep 24, 12:04 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

I've told him that a hundred times... He won't listen.
How does he expect anyone to give his antenna much of a
chance when the "theory" he provides is generally caca, and
he refuses to build an actual working antenna to demo and test?
What a load of @#$%...
Art and his groupies just don't get it.
It's not that anyone is against new ideas, antennas, etc,
ad nausium.
Just don't feed us a turd and call it a steak if one can't even
take the trouble to build a working example to test. :/
If I had some new whiz bang antenna cooked up, I would build
and test one first, and then talk about it later if it actually was
proven to work.
Art goes the other route. He talks a great storm, but nothing is
ever produced to actually test in the real world.
As far as I see it, that is no way to live.
MK

Maxwells laws
 

On 24 Sep, 14:18, wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:04 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:



Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

I've told him that a hundred times... He won't listen.
How does he expect anyone to give his antenna much of a
chance when the "theory" he provides is generally caca, and
he refuses to build an actual working antenna to demo and test?
What a load of @#$%...
Art and his groupies just don't get it.
It's not that anyone is against new ideas, antennas, etc,
ad nausium.
Just don't feed us a turd and call it a steak if one can't even
take the trouble to build a working example to test. :/
If I had some new whiz bang antenna cooked up, I would build
and test one first, and then talk about it later if it actually was
proven to work.
Art goes the other route. He talks a great storm, but nothing is
ever produced to actually test in the real world.
As far as I see it, that is no way to live.
MK

I have built them no problem but I am not going to give them away to
people who arenot interested in them.
It is no problem to me if you don't make one. Listen out for me when
it gets cold on 160 meters. I have a rotatable one about 2 foot square
that will be on the tower but at the moment I am adding to it to make
it an all bander maybe all frequency with two rotators for horizontal
and vertical radiation. But then if you can't hear me then you can't
work me.
By the way large ground planes are not in vogue anymore since they
have lost their uses. No I anm not going to bring it to you so that
you can see the test or operate it so you will have to continue to
call me names as usual
By the way John E Davis works is still in the archives, he has not
removed it for people trying to find it.
Art