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.

On Nov 8, 1:15*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"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.

Nothing wrong with that David the maximum boom length I got to was 80
feet and 13 elements
but then had to back off to 60feet but they surely worked good but
now
I have got to old to handle the work required to maintain them.
I was very surprized to hear you say that you were wired like Richard
so don't ventue in Illinois!
By the way did you get your four square antenna sorted out and is it
working to your expectations?
With respect to antenna height I have a feeling that height is not a
question of wavelengths but a question of
capacitive coupling to ground. I put the top band antenna up
temporarily at a height of thirty feet and the
the impedance settled on 50 ohms. I am now winterizing it so it gets
thru the winter. It consists of just one element
and a dish reflector but it will have to wait until next year before I
feed it at the dish end, in the mean time it will just be fed at the
centre
I still hope for directionality even tho the rotor is at 30 feet but
either way it will be interesting unless I move on to another project.
I had to move away from the shoebox size of antenna, what I found out
was it worked quite well for receiving but for transmit the eddy
currents opposed each other thus preventing particle elevation so the
volume is now double what it was but still small enough for the rotor
to turn the top band form and light enough to easily put it on the
tower
Regards
Art

On Nov 8, 2:41*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I still hope for directionality even tho the rotor is at 30 feet but
either way it will be interesting unless I move on to another project.

I'm sure it will be directive to some degree. But except for receive,
what good will that do you if you are 20db-30db down from a dipole
due to the excessive inductive losses?
I liken your setup to using a MW receiving loopstick as a transmit
antenna.. :/ Not a whole heck of a lot of difference except yours
is now a massive four shoe boxes in size. Mercy..
It's still puny considering the frequency.
My MW receiving loop in this room is bigger than that.
"A diamond 44 inches by 44 inches.
And my MW loop would almost certainly outdo your design
being as it is bigger and uses less turns of coil. "5"
It's still a dummy load on a rotating stick... :/

I had to move away from the shoebox size of antenna, what I found out
was it worked quite well for receiving but for transmit the eddy
currents opposed each other thus preventing particle elevation so the
volume is now double what it was but still small enough for the rotor
to turn the top band form and light enough to easily put it on the
tower

So we have validation that your first antenna was a dud when used
for transmitting! I'll alert the SPCA!
But I'm afraid doubling the size of your dummy load on a stick is
not going to pan out in the manner you would like.
Even four shoe boxes worth of wound wire maketh not a good 160m
antenna.
Reboot and try again.

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.

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