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

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

Reference found at: http://16pi2.com/

I guess you mean "Two phyicists". Problem is they are not physicis:
No degrees listed, no university affiliation, no publishing list, no
professional society affiliation, papers not published in scholarly
journals therefore no peer review. Probably more that I have
missed.

Even where the three papers were presented (PIRT 2006)
looks like it would not stand up to too much scrutiny. At
that point I lost interest.

73,

Frank

Frank wrote:

...
I guess you mean "Two phyicists". Problem is they are not physicis:
No degrees listed, no university affiliation, no publishing list, no
professional society affiliation, papers not published in scholarly
journals therefore no peer review. Probably more that I have
missed.

Even where the three papers were presented (PIRT 2006)
looks like it would not stand up to too much scrutiny. At
that point I lost interest.

73,

Frank

Hmmm, that is sad, so very sad ...

In other words, your logic, education and reasoning powers make you
highly dependent upon "rubber stamps", and, unable to think for
yourself, reason for yourself, use high mental capacities--you are stuck
with dependance on a "USDA stamp" telling you the "meat" of the matter
is fit for you consumption?

You, certainly, must be the product of this generation ... this is so
unfortunate, when I was in college they taught us "how to reason", and
"how to research"--NOT WHAT TO THINK, HOW TO THINK or IF IT WAS OK TO
THINK ... I guess just like cheap crud made in china ... so has gone the
education given to this new generation ... perhaps you could complain to
the college who has turned out this "inferior merchandise?"

.... sad, so very sad ... :-( Best of luck, may you find better on the
path yet left before you ...

Regards,
JS

"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.

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.