On Nov 11, 7:15*pm, wrote:
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.

Worked for me. Maybe your browser is different
the term wiki or wilki may provide a clue as to the browser I used
Jim you are starting to get very rude, I never said that Vlasov-
Maxwell
had anything to do with antennas

Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:
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.

Worked for me. Maybe your browser is different

The browser used has nothing to do with the results of a Google
search.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Nov 11, 8:35*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:15*pm, wrote:
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.

Worked for me. Maybe your browser is different

The browser used has nothing to do with the results of a Google
search.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ask your children for help or maybe somebody in the group will come
forward to help you.
Don't know why you are following the thread it is all blabber. Can';t
you block me?

Hello, and I would like to propose that subjects in the area of general
electromagnetics be posted to a more appropriate ng such as
sci.physics.electromagnetics or sci.physics.research (moderated). I think
Mr. Unwin has a better chance of finding more sympathetic ears to his
propositions in a more theoretical venue. Along with that recommendation
goes a quote from the late Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof." Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

On Nov 11, 9:06*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:35*pm, wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:15*pm, wrote:
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.

Worked for me. Maybe your browser is different

The browser used has nothing to do with the results of a Google
search.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ask your children for help or maybe somebody in the group will come
forward to help you.
Don't know why you are following the thread it is all blabber. Can';t
you block me?

Wikianswers statement referred to
The question raised was that Maxwells laws require equilibrium
Full wave antennas are in equilibrium buf fractional wavelengths are
not.
((((((((!!!!!( Seems like I have heard that a lot on this
newsgroup )))))!!!!!~
The answer was basically in agreement and stated that for fractional
wavelength antennas
requires compromises when applying Maxwell laws..
You can now ask where the curfrent goes when it reaches the end of a
fractional
wavelength radiatorand get what some say "is the rest of the story"
On the other side you can bombard Wilkianswers that HAM RADIO REJECT
the idea of associating equilibrium with Maxwells laws or any other
laws in Physics.as it just blabber
and does NOT represent the present day thinking of ham radio
enthusiasts in the U.S.and the American Navy reseach centers
in Washington DC
You, the experts, can also ask the ARRL to print same in QST otherwise
change will become unstopable
Regards
Art

J. B. Wood wrote:
... Along with that recommendation
goes a quote from the late Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof." Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

I would like to add:

Gaining the "extraordinary proof[s]" to validate "extraordinary claims"
requires the extraordinary ****ing-off of personalities who are deeply
rooted in common knowledge/theory/equations/accepted-beliefs/etc. -- JS

But then, a "tempest in a teapot" would, quite likely, result in the
same action(s.) Ya' never know, ya' just never know ...

Regards,
JS

You can now ask where the current goes when it reaches the end of a
fractional wavelength radiator and get what some say "is the rest of the
story".

Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length.

Frank

On Nov 12, 12:06*pm, "Frank" wrote:
You can now ask where the current goes when it reaches the end of a
fractional wavelength radiator and get what some say *"is the rest of the
story".

Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length.

Frank

Maybe Frank but it never came to a stop!!!!.
When you look at it as not being equilibrium one must show the sharges
moving to the ends of the radiator
where end effect is created. Now you draw a line to the right on the
outside of the radiator with an arrow at the end to show the movement
of the charge.
Now the original notion that there is no charge or current goes away
because a reactive line and arrow must be assigned for quasi
equilibrium
to be established and that line or vector has only the center of the
radiator to flow to form a closed circuit.
When a radiator is in equilibrium the charge does NOT move to the end
so that there is no vector to the right
thus physics state that the need for an opposing vector does not
exist. Thus for a radiator in equilibrium current will move along the
surface but the charges will not. So do the charges really stay in a
static possition? No it doesn't It was on the surface over the skin
provided by the eddy current which when combined with moving current
both produce a combination magnetic field that provides a vector force
away from the surface of the radiator.
The charge static position.is thus over powered by the combination
magnetic field that places a spin upon the partiucle and ejects it in
a straight line trajectory. These ejections have a reberatory effect
on the radiator and also on the receiving radiator so that
communication occurs in a vibratory manner
Now the extension of gaussian static field shows up in actual
radiation phenomina in the same way the eddy current fields provide
levitation which thus agrees with other known laws Tho it can be shown
that the law of statics is part of Maxwells laws mathematically I know
of no disclosure where the same was approached from a strictly flux
flow position which brings static particles into the mode of radiation
as well as defining the eddy current creating the "weak" force as
anticipated by Einstein till he died.Nowhere is a physics law violated
physics laws have been solidified and the theory is solid
Best regards
Art Unwin.....KB9MZ........XG

On Nov 5, 11:00*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Well Richard I don`t go along with that unless the definition of a wave
is made clear."

We deal with sinusoidal waves because all other shapes can be nade from
combinations of these.

Particle aspects of radiation come to the fore only when radiation
interaxts with matter.

Physics tells us a particle that moves with constant momentum in a
straight line according to Newton`s first law (inertia statement) has
wave motion, according to the "de Broglie hypothesis". Lambda = Planck`s
constant / momentum.

The wave aspect of EM radiation is used as a model to make the
phenomenon intelligible in terms of familiar laws and events of our
everyday, large-scale world.

The 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" says on page 904:
"They (computer program designers) could develop software to simulate
the performance of antennas. In general, these techniques either
numerically solve Maxwell`s equations by descretizing the problem using
integral techniques, such as Moment Methods (MoM) as discussed in
Sec.14-11, or differential technuques, such as finite elements or finite
difference-time domain."

Maxwell gave us everything we need.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Again you are misquoting and this time it is Planck
His constant evolved around a proton where the results has some
conflicts to this day
with respect to classical science. When he was studying black holes in
the aether he saw it as PROTONS escaping
and not particles such as neutrinos which have since proven to have
mass where he was using the term momentum which is a varient of mass
and gravitational effects. There is nothing that suggests that energy
can be carried without the presence of mass and thus the wave of
energy as inferred by many is debunked, Yes Maxwell left a lot but he
nevver alluded to static particles and piossibly not even to the pre
condition pf equilibrium.
What he is famous for is noting all the observations and equations of
his predecessors and used his mathematical acumen to reduce or
condense the laws given to him of which he did not individually
contribute as personal observations at that particular time. Gauss
specifically mentioned static particles where
Maxwell omitted such references thus leaving radiation as a mystery
where the "wave" format gained strength because of the magnetic field
format b ut with which Einstein disagreed. Einsteins foray into
relativity further debunked the idea of waves or energy without mass
to carry potential energy or to
show the effects of kinetic energy and the association between gravity
and momentum and the importance of frequency of movement.

You cannot rely on the forever continuance of old books that were used
in your part of the centuries as being imbedded in stone based on your
own particular life span.History shows that new generations come along
using the education of their fore fathers on whose shoulders they
stand and where the human race requires challenge that the past may
or may not accept when their time comes about and thoughts go with
them. Remember a constant as used by Planck is purely a mathematical
condition which describes an event that occurrs physically without
change such that a number can be prented in the place of a full
description of the actual event in a similar way the "wek force" has
been calculatedf for the past century.
Art
Art

Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length.

Frank

Maybe Frank but it never came to a stop!!!!.
When you look at it as not being equilibrium one must show the sharges
moving to the ends of the radiator

The charges (electrons) do not realy move. They vibrate
at the applied E-field frequency. The charge displacement,
depending on frequency; for example at 10 MHz, is of the
order of 10 atomic diameters -- approximately 2*10^(-9) m.
http://www.geocities.com/ferman30/AtomsDimTable.html

Frank