On Nov 7, 3:59*pm, "Frank" wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message

news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83...

Link at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development
of the wave equation.

Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? *It must
be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for
the Unified Theory of RF Fields. *... maybe the 7th or 8th page then..
42nd page?

No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages.

73,
Frank, VE6CB

To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm

Frank

What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from? Time and
time again we get a quote from books
by some members of this group where it is then used totally out of
context. As an aside I am not quite sure what your intent is to supply
these formula. If it is to substantiate a point then I have totally
missed it.
Many thanks for the postings and efforts
Regards
Art

On Nov 7, 7:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 7, 3:59*pm, "Frank" wrote:



"Frank" wrote in message

news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83...

Link at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development
of the wave equation.

Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? *It must
be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for
the Unified Theory of RF Fields. *... maybe the 7th or 8th page then.
42nd page?

No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages.

73,
Frank, VE6CB

To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm

Frank

What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from? Time and
time again we get a quote from books
by some members of this group where it is then used totally out of
context. As an aside I am not quite sure what your intent is to supply
these formula. If it is to substantiate a point then I have totally
missed it.
Many thanks for the postings and efforts
Regards
Art

Oooops I have just noticed the book reference. As far as what is
printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking
which is why you brought it forward but you did not say that. Maybe
somebody with mathematical knoweledge will come forward to show how it
disproves what I say
but I doubt that, most will revert to the talking head stance.
Any way Frank I like how things are printed so I will try the library
to see if they have a copy. I was particularly interested in the slow
wave comment as that was also derided on this newsgroup.
Best regards
Art

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:12:27 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

As far as what is
printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking

That you invented a time component to Gauss' equations and Maxwell
didn't? Fishing for validation or for Moby Dick? At least Ahab
nailed a gold dollar to the mast for the first one to spot the great
white whale.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Nov 8, 1:25*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:12:27 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
As far as what is
printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking

That you invented a time component to Gauss' equations and Maxwell
didn't? *Fishing for validation or for Moby Dick? *At least Ahab
nailed a gold dollar to the mast for the first one to spot the great
white whale.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm
it is undestandable that you have problems with Maxwell equations.
Gaus did contriubute to the Maxwellian laws which is accepted. The
static law wsas not
the particular gaussian contribution. Many have taken this that tho
Gauss contributed to
Maxwells laws it was not by way of his law of statics thus some have
taken this as pointing
to statics as something different and separate from electromechanics,
Science has excepted that
equilibrium is as universal as the GUT theorem which is why Einstein
searched so long to identify
the "weak" force. I remember a decade ago where I pointed to water
cavitation having the same
effect in electrical matters pointing to the comnbines loop dipole
arrangement where cavitation
occurs so that voltage can be a maximum at the dipole ends and where
llewellen quickly pointed
out that electricity does not work that way likening it to pushing to
a new science. am totally unaware
and nobody has pointed otherwise that the law of statics had a
deinitive connection to Maxwells laws
which points to radiators of a smaller volume and the identification
of the weak force. You can gabble forever
in knee jerk reaction to my postings but until you provide scientific
technology to the subject to repudiate what I state
you will remain a person that is wired diffgerently from other males
that communicats in a strange
way such gthat all meaning is totally obscurred in your search for
like minded people thatg you can have a close relationship with
in a like minded way. I for one are not one of that life style so get
off my back.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 07:05:08 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm
it is undestandable that you have problems with Maxwell equations.

Well, Authru, it is obvious to the readers of this thread that of the
two of us, this non engineer is the one who better comprehends
Maxwell's work!

This non engineer easily observes that Maxwell contributed the
variable t (for time) to Gauss' equations. It is directly observable
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.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm

QED.

On Nov 8, 11:06*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

As a non engineer and somebody who is wired diferntly from the norm

QED.

David, I am so happy that Dr Davis of MIT has finaly been vindicated
in the eyes of this group.
It has taken years for the group to accept the static relationship
with electromagnetics.,
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. Of course if this newsgroup wish to challenge the
book excerpts that have been placed on this thread it would be very
interesting including the deduction that a radiator can be any size,
shape or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium.which is no small
matter in designing small volume antennas using all four fourses that
Maxwell and others clearly intended. Antennas belong to the present
generation where the old timers are satified going to their graves
convident that all is known while the present generation forgve ahead
by the recognition of the trole of all four fouces which must be
accounted for in any full analysis of the subject of radiation.. Now
that Dr Davis has been vindicated old timers who are still mentally
capable have the opportunity to be present in these very exciting
times
Nice weather here Davis so put aside that book you are writing and get
outside where you can practice the praticle instead of being a talking
head.
Best regards
Art.
PS I look forward to your destruction of the text suplied on this
thread since it opposes everything you have argued for during the last
half dozen years.
Hate to tell you but I did tell you so, many, many times. Eat some
humble pie!

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Hate to tell you but I did tell you so, many, many times. Eat some
humble pie!

not me. my antennas are big and high in the sky where they belong, not
packed in a shoebox. just scanning 25 years worth of contest certificates
that prove my big straight planar antennas do work.

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.

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