"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:
It is laughable to think anybody would consider you an authority on the
subject, much less a greater authority than Kraus or any other
contributor to this group. You really should get some psychiatric help to
quell those delusions of grandeur you have.

John, to be fair, in another posting, I quoted Balanis
as saying: "Any transverse components of power density
will not be captured by the [Poynting] integration even
though they are part of the overall power." Balanis seems
to imply that it is possible for transverse radiation
components to exist but get lost inside the math model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


Cecil,

I did nothing more than supply a quotation from a respected authority on the
subject. I did not support the authority. Art dismissed the quotation
without so much as a single reference to any other authority. He did not
provide any supporting math or technical papers. Isn't this like saying "It
is so (or not so) because I said so. Take my word for it."

And he did not answer a single question I asked. Hmmmmmm.

At least you supplied another viewpoint from an authority, although you go
on to reduce my confidence in the quote with "seems to imply" and "it is
possible" (but not certain).

73,
John

John KD5YI wrote:
At least you supplied another viewpoint from an authority, although you go
on to reduce my confidence in the quote with "seems to imply" and "it is
possible" (but not certain).

Those are my guarded words, not Balanis'. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
John KD5YI wrote:
At least you supplied another viewpoint from an authority, although you
go
on to reduce my confidence in the quote with "seems to imply" and "it is
possible" (but not certain).

Those are my guarded words, not Balanis'. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


Oh, crap, Cecil! I know they were not Balanis' words.

The point was that you did not need to supply your own interpretation of
Balanis' quote ("seems to imply" and "it is possible"). You could have
simply supplied the quote and left it at that just as I did in my original
post in this thread. The apparent intention of your "guarded words" was to
support your own viewpoint with Balanis' quote.

Cheers,
John

John KD5YI wrote:
The apparent intention of your "guarded
words" was to support your own viewpoint with Balanis' quote.

Nope, I don't have a dog in this fight.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 11, 1:06 pm, "John KD5YI" wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

...

John KD5YI wrote:
It is laughable to think anybody would consider you an authority on the
subject, much less a greater authority than Kraus or any other
contributor to this group. You really should get some psychiatric help to
quell those delusions of grandeur you have.

John, to be fair, in another posting, I quoted Balanis
as saying: "Any transverse components of power density
will not be captured by the [Poynting] integration even
though they are part of the overall power." Balanis seems
to imply that it is possible for transverse radiation
components to exist but get lost inside the math model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil,

I did nothing more than supply a quotation from a respected authority on the
subject. I did not support the authority. Art dismissed the quotation
without so much as a single reference to any other authority. He did not
provide any supporting math or technical papers. Isn't this like saying "It
is so (or not so) because I said so. Take my word for it."

And he did not answer a single question I asked. Hmmmmmm.

At least you supplied another viewpoint from an authority, although you go
on to reduce my confidence in the quote with "seems to imply" and "it is
possible" (but not certain).

73,
John

John, Roy's program is very old and basic, but it is free to use.
This radiation question is also very basic. So for once do something
for yourself
review your results and tell all what is correct or what not is
correct and that includes
Roy's program i.e. is it reliable if it does not concurr with the
books.?
This question can be resolved very easily and very quickly tho Roy has
never talked about it.
People on this group consistently avoid testing this out for
themselves possibly
because they also distrust NEC programs. If that is the case view the
following:
You have two vec tors that represent electrical field and magnetic
fields each at 90
degrees to each other which provides a resultant vector at 45 degrees.
Now we must consider
the remainig vector that is named "curl". Now something you can guess
at.
At what angle must the "curl" vector with reference to the axis of the
radiator be placed to verify
the statement of 90 degree radiation as stated in books? Do the books
confirm that resultant angle
via mathematics? Note this also inplies that the magnitude of the
resultant vector for the
fields is equal to the magn itude of the "curl " vector. Do the books
point this out also?
Do the work yourself and learn by it
Art