On Sep 12, 3:17*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message

news:iWzyk.2033$1x6.488@edtnps82...

This has lead us to the *obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

Given a 3 ft copper dipole on 1.9 MHz the free space gain is -4.6 dbi,
and exhibits a classic dipole radiation pattern. *Placing a 6 ft diameter,
radial reflector 3 ft from the antenna has no effect on the radiation
pattern,
other than a slight reduction in gain to -5.2 dbi.

Frank

you really don't think art is going to believe that do you?? *it is after
all based on a piece of software using maxwell's equations... which he has
said he believes in and that the software works, because it obviously shows
that his antenna produces a spotlight beam when you tilt it the right
angle... but he won't believe yours.

Ofcourse I do! it is very logical
You certainly must have a reflector that extends beyond the emmiter
dimensions
A dipole extends about 500 feet where as mine extends one
foot.!........Big difference. Like comparing a miniature light bulb
with a string of flourescent lights in an office building.
Has it quit raining yet? you seem to be all wet I think you need to
speak to the Navy and provide some of your expertise.
One Navy port has tilted all of their antennas for better performance
per the permission of an Admiral no less.
Do you know more about antennas than they do? This analysis is easily
proved per Maxwell equations so you should be able to
dispute what the Navy did. Why are they tilted? Because they are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.
Is Maxwell all wet too? Computer programs based on Maxwells laws prove
it is correct so try Eznec for your self.
Tilt a long wire from vertical until it is fully resistive and the
field will show gain. You just do not have any clothes.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Because they are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.
you think the 'weak' force is in maxwell's equations? please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force. do that and i will
personally nominate you for an emmy award.... i would say a nobel prize, but
i really expect to see more handwaving and backpedeling that is more suited
to a bad actor than a physicist.

On Sep 12, 5:20*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...Becaus e they are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.

you think the 'weak' force is in maxwell's equations? *please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force. *do that and i will
personally nominate you for an emmy award.... i would say a nobel prize, but
i really expect to see more handwaving and backpedeling that is more suited
to a bad actor than a physicist.

Oh my! It is in Maxwells laws, without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium.
You are getting a bit silly now. There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Oh my! It is in Maxwells laws, without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium.

identify the specific term in maxwell's equations that incorporates the weak
force... no hand waving now, you have a specific question, identify the term
in the equations. they are published, pick your reference and identify it.

On Sep 12, 7:05*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:20*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...Becaus ethey are
including the "weak" force present in Maxwells calculations.

you think the 'weak' force is in maxwell's equations? *please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force. *do that and i will
personally nominate you for an emmy award.... i would say a nobel prize, but
i really expect to see more handwaving and backpedeling that is more suited
to a bad actor than a physicist.

Oh my! It is in Maxwells laws, without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium.
You are getting a bit silly now. There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
*account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

You would make a good politician: When you don't know the answer,
change the question.

He challenged you as follows: "please state the
equation and term that describes the weak force."

You answered: " without the weak force you cannot have
equilibrium."

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 7:05 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

you'll never get the answer. his only response last night was for me to try
to duplicate one of his rediculous optimizations to get a tilted dipole. he
doesn't know even the most basic math behind the equations, he has latched
onto the gauss equation drawing (not the equation, just the drawing mind
you) that shows the surface integration around a charged object and is doing
everythign from that... the rest of it is made up from misreading, or just
plain not understanding, other news articles that have some kind of
percieved relation to em fields... for instance his latest fasination with
the weak force is from the use of the term 'electro-weak' force, while this
is well known to be confined to the nucleons in an atom he has extended it
to his fantasy world to explain the tipping of dipoles over ground to get
gain... my recommendation is to keep prodding him for fun, but ignore
anything he says.

On Sep 13, 6:04*am, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 7:05 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

you'll never get the answer. *his only response last night was for me to try
to duplicate one of his rediculous optimizations to get a tilted dipole. *he
doesn't know even the most basic math behind the equations, he has latched
onto the gauss equation drawing (not the equation, just the drawing mind
you) that shows the surface integration around a charged object and is doing
everythign from that... the rest of it is made up from misreading, or just
plain not understanding, other news articles that have some kind of
percieved relation to em fields... for instance his latest fasination with
the weak force is from the use of the term 'electro-weak' force, while this
is well known to be confined to the nucleons in an atom he has extended it
to his fantasy world to explain the tipping of dipoles over ground to get
gain... my recommendation is to keep prodding him for fun, but ignore
anything he says.

Tell them what AO showed you

On Sep 13, 7:04*am, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 7:05 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

you'll never get the answer. *his only response last night was for me to try
to duplicate one of his rediculous optimizations to get a tilted dipole. *he
doesn't know even the most basic math behind the equations, he has latched
onto the gauss equation drawing (not the equation, just the drawing mind
you) that shows the surface integration around a charged object and is doing
everythign from that... the rest of it is made up from misreading, or just
plain not understanding, other news articles that have some kind of
percieved relation to em fields... for instance his latest fasination with
the weak force is from the use of the term 'electro-weak' force, while this
is well known to be confined to the nucleons in an atom he has extended it
to his fantasy world to explain the tipping of dipoles over ground to get
gain... my recommendation is to keep prodding him for fun, but ignore
anything he says.

In the past his "big discovery" was that, if you put the static charge
in motion, then at any instant in time the Guassian STATIC law still
applies. Then to make things worse, some scientist at MIT posted here
and agreed with that and that he took that as validation for his
entire theory. After he saw where the thread was going, the MIT guy
quickly departed the discussion and left the rest of us here to deal
with the Frankenstein he created. I think it was a type of academic
hazing of the group. From that came the pronoucement, validated by
MIT, that he was able to validate that the 'Maxwell's static equation
(the surface integral) also held true under dynamic conditions'! The
gravitational analog would be something like saying a ball maintains
the same mass at the top of the hill, as it does while rolling, as it
does at the bottom of the hill. Watch out that he doesn't counter with
relativistic velocities; the motion of charge on the antenna is
actually quite slow and in no way relativistic. Of course it is true
that the Maxwell static law would hold true for a moving charged
particle at any instant frozen in time and of course the MIT scientist
would agree with that (the MIT guy even said he had a computer
printout that simulated a moving charge and, arithmetically the
surface integral charge measured at an instant of time was equal to
the charge of the electron...that made me suspicious of his sense of
humor), but so what? We already know that motion does not deplete the
charge on the particle. The charge on the particle is conserved.
Static charge is not the source of the energy that is used (depleted)
to keep the particle in motion. Maxwell already showed that in the
rest of his equations. The fact that an electron maintains the same
charge regardless of its state of motion and therefore does nothing to
change the state of charge equilibrium has nothing to do with how an
antenna works other than the antenna simply obeys Maxwells laws like
everything else.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 13, 7:04 am, "Dave" wrote:
does at the bottom of the hill. Watch out that he doesn't counter with
relativistic velocities; the motion of charge on the antenna is
actually quite slow and in no way relativistic. Of course it is true

i have no worry about this, relativity is way beyond art. and making the
relation between charge in motion, relativistic effects, and the magnetic
field are WAY beyond art.... i just hope he comes up with something else
stupid to say, its supposed to rain here all day tomorrow!

..... There was a guy in this group who
stated that the weak force was ficticious.
He must be a submariner to. All computer programs based around
Maxwells laws have it to if one wants to
account for all radiation but most just want to design a Yagi because
it is easy to build.
Art

In fact no one has said that the "Weak force" is fictitious. The comment
was in relation to the usage of the term "Electro-weak force".

Frank