On Dec 5, 8:09*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

Art

I expected someone to pop-in with an ultra-simplistic explanation, and
poof!; *Claim the problem explained ...

I myself pay enough attention that, I can see the point you make.
Indeed, anyone with even half-a-brain, interested in rf and having
worked with antennas in a hands-on reality, i.e., build rather than buy,
would have come across this enigma.

Real world example:

I have watched amateurs pump 1+KW into, what I consider, incredibly thin
elements/conductors (my math skills indicate current carrying capacity
of the wire is being vastly exceeded, at points/nodes.) *And, it has
struck me that I don't see this element vaporize at a current node!
Indeed, I don't even see a pronounced sag/heating/softening of such
elements ...

The simple/short explanation makes all our "antenna
prophetic/predicting" formulas and equations work ... the long
explanation is a bit more complex, me thinks ...

Regards,
JS

John., there are one or two who can provide the correct answer.
One is an old timer on this group from years ago who I believe is well
versed in RF
and has made a couple of postings lately. Funny thing is that when an
addition was made to electrical laws by Heaviside
and Maxwell it was just an addition to bring the laws into
equilibrium! Ofcourse, those units encompassed a formula well suited
for a displacement current.
However the idea of waves versus particles exist to this very day even
when Foucualt discovered the presence of a separate current that fit
the initial addition by Maxwell and searched for so long by Einstein
before abandoning classical physics and plunged it to relativism for
the answer on the understanding that the "weak force" was part and
parcel of radiation and a subset of an existing force. He died and
there is nobody left to apply authoritity to his thoughts. I can just
imagine what woild have happened if Einstein extended the static law
by making it a dynamic field which by its equivalent to Maxwell would
have placed particles and equilibrium firmly into radiation. Just
imagine Einstein having possesion of a computer program of today with
optimizer that excluded planar designs in the face of an array in
equilibrium. I know of nobody familiar with the present antenna
programs who can explain the addition of the "'Weak force" that creats
arrays in equilibrium without a hint of parallelism or planar
construction. Have all the antenna computer programmers also died or
do they have a quiet distrust of their work with respect to Maxwell ?
Now we have the relevalation that Neutrinos DO actually have mass
obtained frtom the Sun which puts another nail in the coffin with
respect to waves.
Yes, American Universities deserve their failing grade.( Read Asimov
thoughts on present science teaching)
NEXT engineer scientist/rocket engineer or what ever

Art Unwin KB9MZ....,..,.xg (uk)

Art Unwin wrote:
... Have all the antenna computer programmers also died or
do they have a quiet distrust of their work with respect to Maxwell ?
Now we have the relevalation that Neutrinos DO actually have mass
obtained frtom the Sun which puts another nail in the coffin with
respect to waves.
Yes, American Universities deserve their failing grade.( Read Asimov
thoughts on present science teaching)
NEXT engineer scientist/rocket engineer or what ever

Art Unwin KB9MZ....,..,.xg (uk)

Actually, no, general programmers fill the planet, competition for work
is high ... well, perhaps better in china, india, etc. :-(

However, programmers "don't much" appreciate programs which play
horseshoes. We like EXACT answers, exact measurements and routines
which CONSISTENTLY return EXACT figures, dimensions, etc. ... in true
math there is but one answer, artists see things in gray, programmers in
black and white. When a program says, "Well, you start here, with this
measurement, and prune, or lengthen", or, "You start with this
capacitance (or inductance) and then adjust as necessary", I feel ill.

Example:

IF Pi X 3 = circumference ever fails (I expect it to be just as accurate
for a 1 inch circle as a 1 million mile one), or returns a "figure to
begin experimenting from", I will see it as only a guess also ... and
requiring an artist to deduce.

Antenna design parameters are a nightmare ... indeed, since that which
is not a science is an art--antenna design looks very much an art to me
.... or, at least mixed fields of discipline are required.

Now, one Art should recognize another art ... grin

And, I am done with this whole discussion, someday we will have accurate
tools to work with ... end of story.

Regards,
JS

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 8:09 pm, John Smith wrote:
I know of nobody familiar with the present antenna
programs who can explain the addition of the "'Weak force" that creats
arrays in equilibrium without a hint of parallelism or planar
construction. Have all the antenna computer programmers also died or
do they have a quiet distrust of their work with respect to Maxwell ?

nope, us programmers are perfectly happy, you on the other hand should
completely distrust any computer program modelling antennas out there...
NONE of them include the weak force, therefore they should not be trusted to
model your magical equilibrium antennas. you must go off and find a
different way to calculate your antenna patterns that does include the weak
force.

Now we have the relevalation that Neutrinos DO actually have mass
obtained frtom the Sun which puts another nail in the coffin with
respect to waves.

the only place that has been revealed is to your in your delusional dreams.
go publish that in a peer reviewed scientific journal and see how many cups
of coffee it gets you.

On Dec 6, 6:31*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Dec 5, 8:09 pm, John Smith wrote:

I know of nobody familiar with the present antenna
programs who can explain the addition of the "'Weak force" that creats
arrays in equilibrium without a hint of parallelism or planar
construction. Have all the antenna computer programmers also died or
do they *have a quiet distrust of their work with respect to Maxwell ?

nope, us programmers are perfectly happy, you on the other hand should
completely distrust any computer program modelling antennas out there...
NONE of them include the weak force, therefore they should not be trusted to
model your magical equilibrium antennas. *you must go off and find a
different way to calculate your antenna patterns that does include the weak
force.

Now we have the relevalation that Neutrinos DO actually have mass
obtained frtom the Sun which puts another nail in the coffin with
respect to waves.

the only place that has been revealed is to your in your delusional dreams.
go publish that in a peer reviewed scientific journal and see how many cups
of coffee it gets you.

No Siree, it has been several years that the idea of Neutrinos without
mass was squashed.
Two years ago it was again confirmed in experiments in Batavia,
Illinois. And ofcourse it gives CERN
its impetus for their current experiments in Switzerland
Pull yourself together David As for publishing academics require a
reference lists of quotes from other members of academia
and are loath to challenge prior papers and academics. Thus to be
published you must stay on the same track as others
with no going back for solid review. History shows that papers
supplied by non members of academia will never be accepted in their
life time.
That is why I say papers should be open source and open to challenge
from those outside academia.
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
That is why I say papers should be open source and open to challenge
from those outside academia.

go challenge anything you want... it sounds like you don't want or need to
reference any current papers since your theory goes against everything that
is accepted, so just publish away. you have a web site, put something on
there that is testable and see if anyone can prove it. or better yet, apply
for another patent with something useful and see if anyone buys it. your
magical levitating weak force neutrinos make for a good laugh now and then,
but are otherwise total fantasy until you can show the equations... and not
a single reputable publication will accept a paper from you without those
equations.