On Sep 12, 11:39*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 6:18 am, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

David, what I have stated is based on known laws and phenomina and
started with the recognision
that applying a time varying field and radiators to a Gaussian field
equates to Maxwell's laws.
Right from the start you could not concentrate on proving or
disproving that statement !

around and around we go... i quoted the required passages from jackson and
ramo/whinnery/vanduzer to show that adding time to gauss'es law was
incorrect. *the law is time independent, meaning it does not require a time
term, it applies for all time instantaneously and it is properly included in
maxwell's equations as is. *your addition of *'t' is not necessary. *proof
is not necessary, it is by definition and intuitively obvious to anyone with
the proper background.

Oh David I extended it to make it dynamic by adding a time varying
current where it duplicates Maxwells law
Find a ham who is conversant with physics and mathematics bring him
forward on your behalf for debate.
Tell him what you want debated say, what is stated above. Do that and
you will do a service for ham radio.
Warn him that the question as to whether a static field can be
transformed to a dynamic field quoting any book
that says you can't. He will then refuse to appear. End of story.
Art...is it still raining? Are you still all wet?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 11:39 am, "Dave" wrote:

Oh David I extended it to make it dynamic by adding a time varying
current where it duplicates Maxwells law

so you had to extend a set of equations that you say is giving proper
results as they were written oh so long ago and have been implemented in all
sorts of antenna modeling software that you say works just fine... so what
did your extension do? if the software works as is without your changes to
the equations then how are your changes necessary? what does your change to
them predict that isn't already in there?? since you didn't write your own
software, but are fond of quoting results of whatever you use, then
obviously your change wasn't necessary and yet you rely on it... very
strange... and no, its still raining and should be raining all weekend... so
keep ranting... i still want to know about the neutrinos and how they settle
on plasmas that are decidedly not diamagnetic and cause them to radiate.

On Sep 12, 7:08*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 11:39 am, "Dave" wrote:

Oh David I extended it to make it dynamic by adding a time varying
current *where it duplicates Maxwells law

so you had to extend a set of equations that you say is giving proper
results as they were written oh so long ago and have been implemented in all
sorts of antenna modeling software that you say works just fine... so what
did your extension do? *if the software works as is without your changes to
the equations then how are your changes necessary? *what does your change to
them predict that isn't already in there?? *since you didn't write your own
software, but are fond of quoting results of whatever you use, then
obviously your change wasn't necessary and yet you rely on it... very
strange... and no, its still raining and should be raining all weekend... so
keep ranting... i still want to know about the neutrinos and how they settle
on plasmas that are decidedly not diamagnetic and cause them to radiate.


IF YOU DO NOT PRE GUIDE IT TO A PLANAR DESIGN WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE
THE WEAK FORCE
IT WILL SUPPLY A BETTER RADIATOR BY ADDING THE WEAK FORCE TO SUPPLY
REQUIREMENTS ASKED OF IT
PER MAXWELLS LAWS AND NOT BY YAGI APPROACH. I.E ASK FOR MAX GAIN AND
THE PROGRAM CHOOSES.
ART