"art" wrote in message
...
On 8 Dec, 07:30, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

newsov6j.253$va7.168@trndny08...





"Dave" wrote in message
news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04...

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message

art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has
he
got in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!

Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.

Derek.

Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a
time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you
have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then
you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric
field,
and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the
complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to
Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to
the fields produced.

i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed
in
it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero.
you
can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single
electron
is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the
field
from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the
other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's
law.
now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the
surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you
are
moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to
the
charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the
surface
to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also
increase.
BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit
the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen
instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the
surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad
absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....

hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that
i
haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't
correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically
pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field?
oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where
it
the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the
10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group.

Should be easy enough to check the claims. If as Art suggests there is a
constant interchange of particles in the surface element of a radiator,
then
some detectable physical changes should take place. Construct an antenna
using anodised aluminium (aluminum for US readers) for the radiating
element. Take some smaller (non resonant pieces) and mount them some
distance away from the antenna but exposed to similar environmental
conditions. Leave for a year or so and then examine the radiating element
surface and compare with the samples. Is there any difference in the
surface
structure?

The samples should be non resonant, of the same batch material as the
antenna and arranged so that they are not likely to radiate or absorb RF
energy from the test antenna, while still being exposed to the same
weathering and other factors as the test antenna.

Mike G0ULI
Using anodised al- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike that is a novel aproach but it does appear that
exposure to the antmosphere of any element cnnot be prevented
i.e. pin hole propargation which is evidenced by my mercedes
plating processes. However the guts of GUT is the unification
of mechanical laws ( revolving around equilibrium) with electro
magnetic laws. There is no simpler way to verify that cvonnection
than to verify the required angle for a radiator to produced a
uniform radiation such as horizontal polarization. This is a
direct connection that can now be resolved by the use of computor
programs that follow Maxwell and not the equilibrium dictates
of the mechanical world. That is the test for finality in this quest,
an acceptable unity between the sciences.I am beginning to believe
that most of the participants do nor have a computor program or
even a trust in the results when it shown that is formed around
empirical evalution and not solely on Maxwells laws without
suspect additional conditions.To my mind anybody who is antenna
computor savvy would leap at the chance of determining the structure
of a particular radiator to become a leader in this debate, but
unfortunately there are none. When the programmer involved with Eznec
refutes the validity of accepted mechanical laws or dismisses the
notion of non frictional environments there would appear to be some
merit
in questioning their "corrective" actions which for a viable law such
as
Maxwell's is somewhat fraudulent.
For the same person to descend into personal attacks in defence of
his posture certainly suggests that his limits of viability.
have been some what strained
Like Cecil he has a large amount of knoweledge which in itself is
not enough when the quest in total victory and elimination to all
oponents
What a waste of such valuable brain power.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)
has been some what strained

Hi Art,

Provided that the antenna and sample pieces are exposed to the same
atmospheric effects, gross damage such as random pinholing to the surface
will be identical in all pieces. However I believe that the antenna element
should additionally show a regular pattern of disturbance caused by standing
waves which might be identified using electron microscopy or just possibly a
high power visual microscope.

Computer modelling has its place, but all computer models are constrained by
the constants and formulae used to calculate the final results. When the
computer model does not agree with physical measurements in the real world,
then one of three conclusions may be drawn. The wrong data has been entered,
the real world measurement is in error, or a previously unknown variable
needs to be taken into account and added to the computer model. Of the three
possibilities, the last is the most unlikely if the model is mature and
correctly predicts the behaviour of known, experimentally proven systems.

In order to successfuly add a new calculating method to a computer model, it
must correctly match the existing results while also correctly predicting
the new previously unknown behaviour. This is not a trivial task and it is
insufficient to just add a correction factor as this just demonstrates that
the true nature of the problem is not understood.

NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy grail
in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or
configurations. They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design
performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what
properties a new and previously untried design might have. The programs are,
of necessity, constrained by the accuracy of the physical measurements and
formulae used in writing the original program.

I do not consider the challenge to Newton's Laws to be valid. Just because
there is no true vacuum anywhere in the universe, as far as can be
established, then all objects will eventually come to rest due to friction.
This does not invalidate the premis that in the absence of friction or any
other external influence, an object would continue in motion along a
straight path forever.

Ultimately whatever predictions are made by computer modelling programs or
theory, the only measure of success is by physical measurement in the real
world.

Mike G0ULI