Every generation that I have encountered (three) during my life time is
absolutely convinced that they know everything and that there is nothing
left to discover. I usually find this trait to be most displayed with
electrical engineers, though software engineers run a very close second
place.

Ed, NM2K

On Nov 10, 12:24*pm, "Frank" wrote:
I am also pleased that the present generation are using up to date
material and not the books of 50 years ago
where those taught at that time all was thought to be known and all
change was resisted.

Art, I am not sure what you mean. *This material has not changed
in over 100 years. *To quote from Ida's text, pp 731, 732: *"Based
on the inroduction of the displacement currents in Ampere's law,
Maxwell predicted the existence of propagating waves, a prediction
that was verified experimetally in 1888 by Heinrich Hertz. *This prediction
was based on the nature of the equations one obtains by using Maxwell's
equations. *We will show here that Maxwell's equations result, in general,
in wave equations". *This proof is shown in "Example 12.3", which is
posted on my previously referenced web link:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Unless you can show, by manipulation of Maxwell's equations, that it
is possible to obtain a 2nd order partial differential equation where the
independant variable is time; what is the point? *I should also note
that a course I took in electromagetics (About 1983) has an almost
identical development of a wave equation. *For reference the text is:
"Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields", Clayton R Paul, and
Syed A Nasar, published in 1982, ISBN 0-07-045884-7, *pp 241 - 243

73,

Frank.

Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss
law of statics
with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most resistance of the
this group.
They seemed to see staics as something divorced from electromagnetics
and thus
one could not use equations of one with respect to the other. Thus
when it was shown
that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body
said that was not valid.
The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical
interplay whilst talking about quasi
statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this
rejection at the beginning that set the stage
for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day
pretty much all are of the position that interfacing
statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally
invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years
ago.
It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that
treated the subject with startling clarity.
About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that
covers the Aether and its driving relationship
to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with
which they outlined questions that the present aproach
seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam)
of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day
notions
of the Univers as opposed to their own findings. This paper is
excellent and shows that many present day notions could be way of the
mark
Thus it pleases me that many are still questioning or reviewing the
logic of electromagnetics including the more modern works of Planck in
light of present day advances which certainly does not reflect the
attitude of many in this group. In science and physics it is not a
crime to challenge the thinkings of the past regardless if it may
result in change as age of a theory does not present the idea of
validity goes along with seniority
As an aside modern books still refer to waves in electromagnetics but
I feel this is a result of not understanding how radiation occurs and
thus concluding it similar to magnetic lines of force where as I
theorise it is the multi quantity of elevation and projection of
charged particles with spin such that straight line trajectory is
maintained , a must for transmission of radio communications by virtue
of the "weak force"
Regards
Art

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:36:56 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws

Well, it didn't take long for amnesia to emerge from remission.

Just to set the time-line:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:18:20 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:

on page:
http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
at the paragraph heading (guess what?):
"The Time-Dependant Wave Equation"
This is a part of the curriculum of every EE who has attempted to
educate you to this matter. Even this non engineer has formal
training to this specific point.

You now have been offered clear, specific, and demonstrable proof that
your claims are spurious. However, I am full aware that we will
revisit those invalid claims again as if you were never aware of this
simple demonstration.

Two days, five hours, 18 minutes, and 36 seconds for the fog to roll
back in.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss
law of statics with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most
resistance of the this group.They seemed to see staics as something
divorced from electromagnetics and thus one could not use equations
of one with respect to the other. Thus when it was shown
that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body
said that was not valid.

I don't understand the above comments since Gauss' laws for electric
and magnetic fields are the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations. In
fact the equations for static and the time-varying case are identical,
as follows, in point form:

DEL dot D = rho, and;

DEL dot B = 0

(Paul and Nasar, pp 199, 200.)

The above is identical to that found in the classic EM text:
"Electromagnetic Theory", by Julius Adams Stratton of MIT; published
in 1941. There is nothing new in any of this.
Probably the development of a wave equation from Maxwell's
equation was a bit of overkill to make a point.

The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical
interplay whilst talking about quasi
statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this
rejection at the beginning that set the stage
for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day
pretty much all are of the position that interfacing
statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally
invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years
ago.
It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that
treated the subject with startling clarity.

The "Quasi-static" referred to above only effect displacement
current in Ampere's law.

About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that
covers the Aether and its driving relationship
to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with
which they outlined questions that the present aproach
seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam)
of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day
.............................................

What are the references to the above mentioned paper?

73,

Frank

On Nov 10, 7:58*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss
law of statics with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most
resistance of the this group.They seemed to see staics as something
divorced from electromagnetics and thus one could not use equations
of one with respect to the other. Thus when it was shown
that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body
said that was not valid.

I don't understand the above comments since Gauss' laws for electric
and magnetic fields are the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations. *In
fact the equations for static and the time-varying case are identical,
as follows, in point form:

* * * * * * * * DEL dot D = rho, and;

* * * * * * * * DEL dot B = 0

(Paul and Nasar, *pp 199, 200.)

The above is identical to that found in the classic EM text:
"Electromagnetic Theory", by Julius Adams Stratton of MIT; published
in 1941. *There is nothing new in any of this.
Probably the development of a wave equation from Maxwell's
equation was a bit of overkill to make a point.

The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical
interplay whilst talking about quasi
statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this
rejection at the beginning that set the stage
for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day
pretty much all are of the position that interfacing
statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally
invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years
ago.
It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that
treated the subject with startling clarity.

The "Quasi-static" referred to above only effect displacement
current in Ampere's law.

About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that
covers the Aether and its driving relationship
to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with
which they outlined questions that the present aproach
seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam)
of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day
.............................................

What are the references to the above mentioned paper?

73,

Frank

Brilliant Frank as a mechanical engineer I trust you will excuse me
from knowing this.
Ofcourse I will have to review things for myself so I understand fully
what you have pointed out
The way I put it initially is that if you add radiators and a time
varying field to a gaussian field while holding to the
equilibrium format you arrive at Maxwells law. I asked somebody that
was knoweledgable in the field about it and he stated I had made a
discovery
which now looking back could mean anything.However, I sought this
opinion from a qualified person as I had gone thru a series of
illnesses and at that particular meeting puss was flowing from my
pacemaker chest pocket but it was an excercise that I had to do since
my training originially was that of an mechanical engineer before I
had heart troubles and lost some of my memory faculties Because of
this "discovery" it then becomes obvious that a radiator can be any
shape , size and elevation
when meeting Maxwells laws" as long as the contents of the border is
in equilibrium" Now Frank notable hams have stated that a radiator
must be straight for maximum efficiency which from my observations are
untrue. Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated
around Maxwells laws
THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the
equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Well as you
know you overchecked that for yourself and confirmed it, thus the
basis for my theory then started to unravel until I arrived at my
present point where antennas of the highest efficiency can made within
the smaller volume which I have subsequently made many. So it was then
I shared some details to this group as they were supposed experts and
from then on they have thrashed me in every way including a ham who
provided the matjhematics comparing
Gauss and Maxwell which continues to this day.Basicalyl all resisted
the idea of a different antenna design on the assumption that all was
known about antennas Now we have assertions that the Neutrinos has no
mass and no magnetic field and yet itis understood that there are
millions of them for every cubic metre on Earth and it goes on.
Hopefully the above will make things clearer. I will try and get back
to the white papers that I spoke of and hopefully the book that was
published later. I will get back to you after I review the history of
events on my laptop in the hope it still resides there
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

On Nov 10, 9:41*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 10, 7:58*pm, "Frank" wrote:



Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss
law of statics with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most
resistance of the this group.They seemed to see staics as something
divorced from electromagnetics and thus one could not use equations
of one with respect to the other. Thus when it was shown
that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body
said that was not valid.

I don't understand the above comments since Gauss' laws for electric
and magnetic fields are the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations. *In
fact the equations for static and the time-varying case are identical,
as follows, in point form:

* * * * * * * * DEL dot D = rho, and;

* * * * * * * * DEL dot B = 0

(Paul and Nasar, *pp 199, 200.)

The above is identical to that found in the classic EM text:
"Electromagnetic Theory", by Julius Adams Stratton of MIT; published
in 1941. *There is nothing new in any of this.
Probably the development of a wave equation from Maxwell's
equation was a bit of overkill to make a point.

The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical
interplay whilst talking about quasi
statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this
rejection at the beginning that set the stage
for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day
pretty much all are of the position that interfacing
statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally
invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years
ago.
It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that
treated the subject with startling clarity.

The "Quasi-static" referred to above only effect displacement
current in Ampere's law.

About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that
covers the Aether and its driving relationship
to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with
which they outlined questions that the present aproach
seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam)
of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day
.............................................

What are the references to the above mentioned paper?

73,

Frank

Brilliant Frank as a mechanical engineer I trust you will excuse me
from knowing this.
Ofcourse I will have to review things for myself so I understand fully
what you have pointed out
The way I put it initially is that if you add radiators and a time
varying field to a gaussian field while holding to the
equilibrium format you arrive at Maxwells law. I asked somebody that
was knoweledgable in the field about it and he stated I had made a
discovery
which now looking back could mean anything.However, I sought this
opinion from a qualified person as I had gone thru a series of
illnesses and at that particular meeting puss was flowing from my
pacemaker chest pocket but it was an excercise that I had to do since
my training originially was that of an mechanical engineer before I
had heart troubles and lost some of my memory faculties Because of
this "discovery" it then becomes obvious that a radiator can be any
shape , size and elevation
when meeting Maxwells laws" as long as the contents of the border is
in equilibrium" Now Frank notable hams have stated that a radiator
must be straight for maximum efficiency which from my observations are
untrue. Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated
around Maxwells laws
THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the
equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer. Well as you
know you overchecked that for yourself and confirmed it, thus the
basis for my theory then started to unravel until I arrived at my
present point where antennas of the highest efficiency can made within
the smaller volume which I have subsequently made many. So it was then
I shared some details to this group as they were supposed experts and
from then on they have thrashed me in every way including a ham who
provided the matjhematics comparing
Gauss and Maxwell which continues to this day.Basicalyl all resisted
the idea of a different antenna design on the assumption that all was
known about antennas Now we have assertions that the Neutrinos has no
mass and no magnetic field and yet itis understood that there are
millions of them for every cubic metre on Earth and it goes on.
*Hopefully the above will make things clearer. I will try and get back
to the white papers that I spoke of and hopefully the book that was
published later. I will get back to you after I review the history of
events on my laptop in the hope it still resides there
Best regards
Art Unwin *KB9MZ....XG

Google
Secrets of the aether

Three papers written by two physics peoiple in Southern Illinois
Now also in book form released about two years ago
Art

Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote:
Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated
around Maxwells laws
THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the
equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer.

Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's equations.
or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak force
interactions (besides your own posts of course).

On Nov 11, 3:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote:

Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated
around Maxwells laws
THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the
equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer.

Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's equations.
or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak force
interactions (besides your own posts of course).

Dave
Any AO programs will do it as they both have optimizers
There is a free program Gal-mana or some thing like that which also
has an optimizer
4nec2 is a freebee with optimizer. All of these will provide antennas
in equilibrium
All other antenna programs have inut of the weak force tho I doubt
that those designed
just for Yagis will have it as that is a planar device. My
suggestion is that you stay with minninec programs
and the 4nec2 program by Ari which incorporate Minninec optimizers
additions.
I would imagine that any history books on universal laws would have
reference to it.
The masters worked from basics to get their laws based on equilibrium
which in the mathematical areana is a Gaussian field where all forces
must
add up to zero. All of the laws ddid not add up to zero so they added
a force that completed the circle. They did not identify the "weak
force" but inclusion was a must for all forces/vectors to add up to
zero.All the laws that Maxwell used in his condensation of laws all
had the stipulation of equilibrium.
Wet and cold here so stay in and be a book worm
Regards
Art

On Nov 11, 5:15*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 11, 3:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote:

Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated
around Maxwells laws
THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the
equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer.

Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's equations.
or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak force
interactions (besides your own posts of course).

Dave
Any AO programs will do it as they both have optimizers
There is a free program Gal-mana or some thing like that which also
has an optimizer
4nec2 is a freebee with optimizer. All of these will provide antennas
in equilibrium
All other antenna programs have inut of the weak force tho I doubt
that those designed
*just for *Yagis will have it as that is a planar device. My
suggestion is that you stay with minninec programs
and the 4nec2 program by Ari which incorporate Minninec optimizers
additions.
I would imagine that any history books on universal laws would have
reference to it.
The masters worked from basics to get their laws based on equilibrium
which in the mathematical areana is a Gaussian field where all forces
must
add up to zero. All of the laws ddid not add up to zero so they added
a force that completed the circle. They did not identify the "weak
force" but inclusion was a must for all forces/vectors to add up to
zero.All the laws that Maxwell used in his condensation of laws all
had the stipulation of equilibrium.
Wet and cold here so stay in and be a book worm
Regards
Art
"
David I googled" Maxwell equilibrium"
On the first page they have a wiki answer to a question as to why
equilibrium is not a basic for fractional wavelength antennas!
You can kill two birds with one stone on that one
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

David I googled" Maxwell equilibrium"
On the first page they have a wiki answer to a question as to why
equilibrium is not a basic for fractional wavelength antennas!
You can kill two birds with one stone on that one
Art

A Google search with that phrase returns several papers on the solution
of Vlasov-Maxwell equations for a plasma, which has nothing to do
with antennas.

A Google Groups search with that phrase returns numorous links to
your own babbling nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.