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.

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?

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

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