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.



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

Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I
have apothosized, nothing !
\When I mention antannas of a new desighn you say who needs them. When
I say that antennas should be tilted
with respect to the Earth you say BS. When I point to the
coirrelatioin between Gaus statics and Maxwell you remain silent.
Now you bring up Kraus by quoting what he said with respect to
computor programs. I was not happy with computor programs because of
the assumption
that they has about sino soidal current. My studies prove that I was
wrong in that determination. This allows me to review Kraus antennas
to see where he deviated from Maxwell. You point to a computor program
on antennas. Most if not all hams foicus on planar designs where
current is induced
progressively from one element to another in simple electromagnetic
coupling form, that relationship does not supply anything with respect
to radiation.
Programmers put that design as an addition to the program that
revolved around Maxwell you did not work around approximations.
Now I feel it is legitamate to apply the computor programs to my
deductions and Maxwell produces the antenna that I forcast and not the
lesser efficient yagi antenna.Same goes for Krauss's work on the helix
which like the plana designs are also a approximation. These fact are
indisputable if you believe the MOM methods used for computor
programs. Now we have the situation where a yagi or the helix is
pushed aside by the computor programs in favor of what I have
postulated. Now it is YOU who have a problem. I kn ow you do not use
computors but it was you that brought the subject up.Computor programs
duplicate what I am postilating with more efficient antennas and yet
you put computors forward to repudiate what I say.
So what are you going to do now? study computor programming to see how
a program based around Maxwellk could provide such incorrect answers,
deny the teachings of Maxwell or deny the viability of antenna
computor programs which puts ham radio back a generation?
Regards
Art