Light,Lazers and HF
 

What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

1, Focusing the radiation involves using a parabolic antenna whose surface
area is several wavelengths in length
2. Since our definition of HF includes frequencies between 1.8 Mhz and
50mhz, the physical size of the reflector required would be too large for
the average ham to handle.
3. However, that does not prevent HF radiation from being focused, it just
address the practicality concerning costs.
Therefore the answer is: There's nothing to prevent HF radiation for
focusing for extra gain, as long as you build the antenna or beam in
proportion to the wavelengths. If the wavelength is 10,000 times larger than
that old TV dish, then simply build your "dish" 10,000 times larger, and in
the same proportions.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

On Sep 11, 11:11*pm, "Hal Rosser" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

What is the main factor that prevents HF radiation from focussing
for extra gain?

1, Focusing the radiation involves using a parabolic antenna whose surface
area is several wavelengths in length
2. Since our definition of HF includes frequencies between 1.8 Mhz and
50mhz, the physical size of the reflector required would be too large for
the average ham to handle.
3. However, that does not prevent HF radiation from being focused, it just
address the practicality concerning costs.
Therefore the answer is: There's nothing to prevent HF radiation for
focusing for extra gain, as long as you build the antenna or beam in
proportion to the wavelengths. If the wavelength is 10,000 times larger than
that old TV dish, then simply build your "dish" 10,000 times larger, and in
the same proportions.

Hal
I have a antenna the size of two shoe boxes. This antenna is multi
wave lengths long
and will radiate on top band. In making this antenna so small I added
inductance
which I consequently cancelled as lumped loads have not been included
in the laws of radiation
as espoused by Maxwell. The opinion of this group is that I place a
reflector at a great distance
from this small physical box and call it a reflector!
I place this same small antenna upon the ground and with the use of a
antenna program
determine that I have produced gain based on a perfect ground. The
design on the antenna
is based upon the laws of Gauss since the laws of Maxwell has not
provided any impetus to the
solving of the phenomina of radiation . The laws of Gauss correlate
with each other and a person came on board
to verify such. But the trail that I offered has been rejected
Not.... because the association presented is in error
it was rejected by.....well..........well just because....... without
providing evidence to the contrary.
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.
Regards
Art KB9MZ.....XG

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 11, 11:11 pm, "Hal Rosser" wrote:
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.

better, getting better... keep going, this concept has potential to keep me
amused for the weekend with this bad wx. pressurized water vs 160m size
photons is a good combination!

Light,Lazers and HF
 

On Sep 12, 1:25*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 11, 11:11 pm, "Hal Rosser" wrote:

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.

better, getting better... keep going, this concept has potential to keep me
amused for the weekend with this bad wx. *pressurized water vs 160m size
photons is a good combination!

I have no idea of how a photon affects radiation. I do know that when
a building is being drenched by a jet of water
you do not cover the building with a protective shield or reflector
you put a reflector close to the source.
You have to be the only guy in the country with a 2000 foot diameter
umbrella to keep your hair dry! You were the leader in this ham group
that denied the mathematics of the comparison
of Maxwell and Gauss. Because the rest of the hams on this group could
not handle the transition of the different units involved
or have not studied physics they followed you over the cliff like
lemmings.
All because you were exercising free speech where verification was not
available
I assume you know how to turn on a transmitter but beyond that your
education is a great mystery.
For sure you never received a pass in physics of any sort and debate
with such a person is impossible
I await the day when a ham comes along with sufficient education to
verify or discredit the Maxwell/Gauss
mathematics but I know a ham is not around in the U.S. that can
discredit it.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I await the day when a ham comes along with sufficient education to
verify or discredit the Maxwell/Gauss
mathematics but I know a ham is not around in the U.S. that can
discredit it.

of course not, we are all educated enough to know the proper relationship
between gauss and maxwell, and the fact that gauss's law is an accepted part
of maxwell's equations... and works fine just as it is without your extra
't' added to it. it would take someone graduating from the warped art's
college of mystical electromagnetics with an advanced degree in
neutrino-anti-gravity-weak-force-jumping-particles to handle that proof!

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

You have to be the only guy in the country with a 2000 foot diameter
umbrella to keep your hair dry!
not quite, but i do have a 120' tall by about 250' long 160m vertical array
and an inverted V at 180' that will beat your shoebox even without the amp
turned on.

You were the leader in this ham group
that denied the mathematics of the comparison
of Maxwell and Gauss.
on the contrary, i keep pointing out that Gauss is an integral part of
Maxwell's equations.

I assume you know how to turn on a transmitter but beyond that your
education is a great mystery.
For sure you never received a pass in physics of any sort and debate
with such a person is impossible
well, i did receive a bachelor of science and engineering in electrical
engineering cum laude from an ivy league university, but it was here in the
states, so that probably doesn't mean anything to you. And i did graduate
from the u.s. navy officers nuclear power school, which at least in some
areas was considered equivalent to a masters degree in nuclear engineering
at the time. but that probably doesn't mean anything either since it was in
the states again.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"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.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

On Sep 12, 2:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I await the day when a ham comes along with sufficient education to
verify or discredit the Maxwell/Gauss
mathematics but I know a ham is not around in the U.S. that can
discredit it.

of course not, we are all educated enough to know the proper relationship
between gauss and maxwell, and the fact that gauss's law is an accepted part
of maxwell's equations... and works fine just as it is without your extra
't' added to it. *it would take someone graduating from the warped art's
college of mystical electromagnetics with an advanced degree in
neutrino-anti-gravity-weak-force-jumping-particles to handle that proof!

David you have had every chance of exposing mathematical error when
the proof
was presented on this newsgroup site. Every point of rebuttal
presented was shown to be in error
It was not provided by me but by a mathematician skilled in the trade,
with a doctorate, working on a NASA project at M.I.T
who came to my defence and showed the mathematical proof. Did you
report the good doctor to the Dean of M.I.T. and NASA
declaring him unfit as seen by your eyes. What credentials did you
present on your own behalf to provide credibility to your
observations ?
Did you mention your finding was based on...........well.......well
because..........well because it was me that said so.................
well I don't have to explain it to you.....................I KNOW HE
IS INCOMPETANT!!!!!................YOU ARE A FOOL DEAN......

Light,Lazers and HF
 

On Sep 12, 2:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I await the day when a ham comes along with sufficient education to
verify or discredit the Maxwell/Gauss
mathematics but I know a ham is not around in the U.S. that can
discredit it.

of course not, we are all educated enough to know the proper relationship
between gauss and maxwell, and the fact that gauss's law is an accepted part
of maxwell's equations... and works fine just as it is without your extra
't' added to it. *it would take someone graduating from the warped art's
college of mystical electromagnetics with an advanced degree in
neutrino-anti-gravity-weak-force-jumping-particles to handle that proof!

Light,Lazers and HF
 

On Sep 12, 2:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I await the day when a ham comes along with sufficient education to
verify or discredit the Maxwell/Gauss
mathematics but I know a ham is not around in the U.S. that can
discredit it.

of course not, we are all educated enough to know the proper relationship
between gauss and maxwell, and the fact that gauss's law is an accepted part
of maxwell's equations...


No,No,No. I understand that Maxwell only used the Mathematics to
encapsulate
observations from about 28 contributors most of which were duplicates.
He never extended Gauss law of statics to express the mathematical
results that he came up with. Extending Gaussian law by adding a
radiator and a time varying field
provides all that Maxwell presented. On top of that it supplies
pictures where radiation can be
isolated and solved where as Maxwell only supplied numbers which
included the requirement
of equilibrium as stated by all contributors which is a reflection of
Newton's laws
all of whichcan be determined by transitioning from a static field to
a dynamic field he d.
Are you going to rewrite history?






and works fine just as it is without your extra
't' added to it. *it would take someone graduating from the warped art's
college of mystical electromagnetics with an advanced degree in
neutrino-anti-gravity-weak-force-jumping-particles to handle that proof!

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Are you going to rewrite history?

sure, i'll rewrite the history as soon as you write something that makes
sense.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"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.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

On Sep 12, 2:50*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

You have to be the only guy in the country with a 2000 foot diameter
umbrella to keep your hair dry!

not quite, but i do have a 120' tall by about 250' long 160m vertical array
and an inverted V at 180' that will beat your shoebox even without the amp
turned on.

You were the leader in this ham group
that denied *the mathematics of the comparison
of Maxwell and Gauss.

on the contrary, i keep pointing out that Gauss is an integral part of
Maxwell's equations.

I assume you know how to turn on a transmitter but beyond that your
education is a great mystery.
For sure you never received a pass in physics of any sort and debate
with such a person is impossible

well, i did receive a bachelor of science and engineering in electrical
engineering cum laude from an ivy league university, but it was here in the
states, so that probably doesn't mean anything to you. *And i did graduate
from the u.s. navy officers nuclear power school, which at least in some
areas was considered equivalent to a masters degree in nuclear engineering
at the time. *but that probably doesn't mean anything either since it was in
the states again.

Yes it does. Navy recruiters were under so much pressure for nucklear
recruits that
all tuition costs were covered by the navy if the recruit promised to
serve.
When it came to graduation time they found out that the recruits had
not been tested for color blindness.
Pretty good gig for students but you had to work hard at school which
obviously you did.
Boeing by and large benefited from those errors by employing them.
What nuclear function did you serve in the navy or were you as blind
in color as you are in other things?

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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.

If you have an optimizer program I will identify it for you.
Where do I pick up the money:

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 2:50 pm, "Dave" wrote:
What nuclear function did you serve in the navy or were you as blind
in color as you are in other things?

fortunately my eyes were perfectly fine and i served my time just fine thank
you.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"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.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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

If you have an optimizer program I will identify it for you.
i have YO and AO but have played with EZNEC and some others... pick your
program and tell me where to put in the weak force term.

Where do I pick up the money:
the emmy's don't have money, just funny statues or some such junk... you
aren't worth the cash, just a good laugh.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

On Sep 12, 7:04*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 5:20 pm, "Dave" wrote:

If you have an optimizer program I will identify it for you.

i have YO and AO but have played with EZNEC and some others... pick your
program and tell me where to put in the weak force term.

Where do I pick up the money:

the emmy's don't have money, just funny statues or some such junk... you
aren't worth the cash, just a good laugh.

Excellent
pull up AO optimiser
Above ground
800 Mhz;inches

Put in xyz for centerfed wasvelength for 800 Mhz
Put in different numbers for xyz for one wire
Source is at the centre

a=1
aa=any number say 8
b =2
bb=any number say 10
c=3
cc=any number say 12
dia = 0.1 inches

vary aa bb and cc only this gives the program free reign to produce a
vertical or a tipped antenna without being
guided one way or the other.ie all numbers are different change entry
numbers if you like as long as there are no repeats
and let the optimizer run where it wants to for resistive impedance ,
max gain or both.
a,b,c are low numbers so the radiator does not drift in terms of
height

20 segments per half wave length should be enough. Impedance will come
out close to 200 ohms as a guess
AND MAXIMUM GAIN OR JUST GAIN OR JUST RESISTIVE IMPEDANCE....YOUR
CHOICE.
LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT YOU GET
Now you are on the hot plate at last.
Put up or shut up

Regards
Art KB9MZ......xg

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

..... 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

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Dave" wrote:
Now you are on the hot plate at last.
Put up or shut up

not even worth opening the program. for I know that any time you let the
optimizer run without realistic bounds and go for maximum gain you are going
to get either and unrealizable design or something that no one would want to
use anyway. that is what has been fooling you all along, you don't know the
limitations of the programs you are using and taking their results as
gospel.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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

Light,Lazers and HF
 

On Sep 12, 11:51*pm, "Frank" wrote:
..... 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

Frank
Electro weak is what some continue to say for the weak force.
Assumption being that it is electrical nature and part and parcel of
another force.
When David does his thing with AO for himself he will inform you of
the angle of the weak force
and may even provide its magnitude. His series of questions and
statements stop here.
If I supply answers and he rejects implementation then we cannot move
on.
He is just baiting or he wwould tell you what AO provided. All have a
chane to resolve the question for themselves
thus relieving me of challenges as to my integrity. I cannot satisfy
anybody and they cannot satisfy themselves
We now enter the stone throwing stage and the thread comes to an end
Have a good day
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg

Light,Lazers and HF
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 11:51 pm, "Frank" wrote:

He is just baiting or he wwould tell you what AO provided. All have a
chane to resolve the question for themselves

of course i'm just baiting the troll... you have said nothing that makes
enough sense to even bother trying to verify it. i know that if i run the
optimizer long enough it will even give gain out of your shoebox full of
wire... that is just the way it works... and AO was really bad for that if
you didn't watch it and constrain it to realizable antennas.

thus relieving me of challenges as to my integrity. I cannot satisfy
anybody and they cannot satisfy themselves
We now enter the stone throwing stage and the thread comes to an end

that started long ago.

Have a good day

maybe i will, the sun is trying to come out so maybe i don't need to bait
you into any more lunacy for our entertainment on here.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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.

Light,Lazers and HF
 

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!