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