On Jan 3, 4:56*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Jan 3, 2:44 pm, "Frank" wrote:

David's where he contendes that Gaussian law of STATICS
is one of the basic laws that Maxwell applied/used without the
required proof..On top of which he denies the applicability of statics
with electro magnetics thus any mathematical aproach cannot be
applicable which is absolutely crazy

well art, here is your proof, from the same ramo whinnery and van duzer book
you like to quote....
compare equation (2) in section 2.09 with equation (1) in section 4.07.
note there is no time in either one of them... and section 2 is specifically
about stationary fields, while sectino 4 is maxwell's equations. *only 2 of
maxwell's equations actually are about time varying fields, those are
Faraday's law and Ampere's law. *The other two are Gauss's law taken
straight from the static case, and the equivalent for magnetic flux... both
of which are time invarient.

The thrust of this thread is solely on the difference of radiation
with respect to hollow radiators and solid radiators and it should be
kept at that to provide a reasonable answer as required in any formal
debate.

the only thing hollow about this debate is your head.

David
I bought that book because you refered to it some time ago where you
misrepresented
what you alluded to and now you are doing it again. In your method of
reading did the law that a radiator can be any shape, size or
elevation as long as it is in equilibrium? I can't conceive that a
mathematition of Maxwells staturer could have missed that observation
if as you say he extended gaussian law of statics. Perhaps you have an
answer for that also of the back of your head.
Your positions continue to be absurd from an engineering point of view
and nobody as yet has confirmed your position and what is really wierd
none have denied
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I bought that book because you refered to it some time ago where you
misrepresented
what you alluded to and now you are doing it again.

misrepresented??? its right in the book, compare those two formula, are
they not the same? is not guass's law, which is a time invarient equation
directly in maxwell's equations??

In your method of
reading did the law that a radiator can be any shape, size or
elevation as long as it is in equilibrium?

if you can find where 'equilibrium' is a required condition in maxwell's
equations, give me the reference in the book. otherwise you are out of
equilibrium.

I can't conceive that a
mathematition of Maxwells staturer could have missed that observation
if as you say he extended gaussian law of statics. Perhaps you have an
answer for that also of the back of your head.

sure, he didn't 'extend' it... he used it verbatum as the book shows. there
is no need to 'extend' it, its a perfectly good law as it is stated and has
been for many years.

our positions continue to be absurd from an engineering point of view
and nobody as yet has confirmed your position and what is really wierd
none have denied

because they are enjoying laughing at your absurd positions as much as i am!

On Jan 3, 5:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I bought that book because you refered to it some time ago where you
misrepresented
what you alluded to and now you are doing it again.

misrepresented??? *its right in the book, compare those two formula, are
they not the same? *is not guass's law, which is a time invarient equation
directly in maxwell's equations??

In your method of
reading did the law that a radiator can be any shape, size or
elevation as long as it is in equilibrium?

if you can find where 'equilibrium' is a required condition in maxwell's
equations, give me the reference in the book. *otherwise you are out of
equilibrium.

I can't conceive that a
mathematition of Maxwells staturer could have missed that observation
if as you say he extended gaussian law of statics. Perhaps you have an
answer for that also of the back of your head.

sure, he didn't 'extend' it... he used it verbatum as the book shows. *there
is no need to 'extend' it, its a perfectly good law as it is stated and has
been for many years.

our positions continue to be absurd from an engineering point of view
and nobody as yet has confirmed your position and what is really wierd
none have denied

because they are enjoying laughing at your absurd positions as much as i am!

Oh My Do you really believe that you are talking on behalf of the
masses?
When Dr Davis of M.I.T. said contrary to the thinking of this group
that Gauss's law of statics
when extended, as I stated, is mathematically the equal to Maxwells
laws as per Maxwells correction.
Many a post has been written since that day castigating the very idea
of equivalence to Maxwell,w
even questioning the propriety of the mathematics. So far nobody has
concurred with Dr Davis
with respect to the math that he presented. You David stated that the
mathematical stance taken was illegal
because there is no connection with respect to statics ! David you
have no credability as anyone who owns a copy of that book can easily
confirm for themselves..Just look at what you now have stated that you
have found the connection
( tho I doubt it) with respect to Statics. Ofcourse if somebody wants
to debate your statement on your behalf I will be happy to refute what
you say page by page. Until then the book stays on the shelf because
of past experiences with your statements.
In Maxwells time he was given credit for what appeared as proof of the
wave theory even to the point of extrapolating same to light
because of the "c" property in his correction which he obtained by
ensuring compliance to Newtons law with respect to equilibrium.
It was decades before Foucalt came along with his discovery of a field
that matched the Maxwell correction where prior to there was none. Now
we can debunk the wave theory as the particle is now in stone
Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg (uk)

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Many a post has been written since that day castigating the very idea
of equivalence to Maxwell,w
even questioning the propriety of the mathematics. So far nobody has
concurred with Dr Davis
with respect to the math that he presented. You David stated that the
mathematical stance taken was illegal

i said that his addition of 't' to the equation was unnecessary since the
law already applies for all time. and it is a perfectly good static law as
it is, and that is how it is applied in maxwell's equations already. you
have failed completely to show any good reason why maxwell's equations, as
published in so many places and used for so many years, are not complete and
correct as they are. you keep handwaving and trying to add in the weak
farce and your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos with no mathematical
support... just a lot of handwaving and bloviating. but don't let me stop
you, i enjoy the rants and off the wall pronouncements, keep it up, its
great fun to watch!

On Jan 4, 10:35*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Many a post has been written since that day castigating the very idea
of equivalence to Maxwell,w
even questioning the propriety of the mathematics. So far nobody has
concurred with Dr Davis
with respect to the math that he presented. You David stated that the
mathematical stance taken was illegal

i said that his addition of 't' to the equation was unnecessary since the
law already applies for all time. *and it is a perfectly good static law as
it is, and that is how it is applied in maxwell's equations already. *you
have failed completely to show any good reason why maxwell's equations, as
published in so many places and used for so many years, are not complete and
correct as they are. *you keep handwaving and trying to add in the weak
farce and your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos with no mathematical
support... just a lot of handwaving and bloviating. *but don't let me stop
you, i enjoy the rants and off the wall pronouncements, keep it up, its
great fun to watch!

My positions

I have never said that Maxwells laws with correction is incorrect.
Period

The correction added was the weak force as dictated by Newtons laws on
equilibrium

Foucoults discovery of eddy currents solidified the addition of
Maxwells correction

By additins to Gaussian law of statics to make it a dynamic field is
equal to the
Laws of Maxwell thus justifying the presence of particals instead of
waves

Dr Davis provided the mathematics to show that the extension to Gauss
equals Maxwells laws
Antenna programs by adhering to Maxwells laws include the four std
forces one of which
is the weak force This group as a unit denied the viability of what
was presented

The above is proven via optimizer programs that result in tipped
verticle radiators
Computer programs based on MoM provide a closer approximation with
respect to radiation than
designs of planar designs because they utelise the existance of the
weak force.

Laws of continuity do not apply to fractional radiators as closed a
circuit is
provided by current flow thru the center

There is no basis for introducing reflections from the end of a
radiator
which has sporned a illigitamate science of it's own

Nobody to my knoweledge has pointed to the Gaussian law of statics to
supplant the
presence of waves with that of particles which also extends to light

Eddy currents use is shown universally as a levitating force on
diamagnetic materials
a methos used in sorting materials in scrap recovery yards.

Neutrinos / particles have an accepted appearance on this Earth via
migration from the Sun
and which does contain mass.

Now David the above brings you back to the reality and not your
wandering, there is no hand waving !
If you wish to be specific about a particular point or add a statement
that you wish to be added to the above
as pointing to a basic difference in the facts then be my guest. This
newsgroup is intended for the discussion of antennas and radiation a
position I respect.

I recognise that with the above statements I am overturning facts that
are presently accepted where all the statements is a continuity
of showing that the law of statics when made into a arbritary dynamic
field in equilibrium provides for the addition
of equilibrium and particles together with particle spin provided by
the action of the weak force in the science of radiation


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

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 4, 10:35 am, "Dave" wrote:

the summary of the complete idiocy snipped

the one true thing he said:
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg (uk)

art, take all that, get it published in any journal on physics or
electromagnetics and i'll nominate you for the nobel prize!

On Jan 4, 12:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

If you wish to be specific about a particular point...

There is no basis for introducing reflections from the end of a
radiator...
_______________

Specifically, Art, then how do you explain the result shown in the
link below?

The reflection seen there is not imaginary, It is the result of a
good, but not perfect termination by a UHF TV transmit antenna to
about 1,500 feet of 75 ohm transmission line.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...easurement.gif

RF

On Jan 4, 1:34*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Jan 4, 12:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

If you wish to be specific about a particular point...

There is no basis for introducing reflections from the end of a
radiator...

_______________

Specifically, Art, then how do you explain the result shown in the
link below?

The reflection seen there is not imaginary, *It is the result of a
good, but not perfect termination by a UHF TV transmit antenna to
about 1,500 feet of 75 ohm transmission line.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...easurement.gif

RF

You can send me a private e mail if you wish, but if you have a
problem that you
need adressing then make a separate thread/posting to the group as a
whole
with a suitable title relative to what you want to be addressed.
For myself I am not in your employ thus I am not required to follow
your demands
I am sure your requirements for an auguement can be addressed by you
in joining
other threads
Art Unwin KB9MZ

On Jan 4, 1:26*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Jan 4, 10:35 am, "Dave" wrote:

the summary of the complete idiocy snipped

the one true thing he said:

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

art, take all that, get it published in any journal on physics or
electromagnetics and i'll nominate you for the nobel prize!

I just wanted to clear the field with respect to your wanderings from
what has been actually said by me
to establish the true basis of your attacks. That is why I have
restated again my position to combat your lies.
It is your idea that I should publish it not mine. I am happy to
supply a record of my work and will supply more as I procede.
It is not necessary to me to get aproval of what I present but I am
willing to debate possible errors in my work as long as it is directly
to the point
and not as a basis for mocking. This action is what I call a matter of
sharing my work to provide a difference viewpoint with respect to
radiation.
Initially it was demanded of me to supply the math and this has been
done by another person independently of any input from me. As a
doctor working for M.I.T I feel he is qualified enough on the subject
such that he deserved a hearing as well as a certain respect.
As yet nobody has shown any reason why the mathematics should not be
accepted so until that point comes about my work stands
Art Unwin KB9MZ

On Jan 4, 2:56*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:34*pm, Richard Fry wrote:

Specifically, Art, then how do you explain the result shown in the
link below?

I am not in your employ thus I am not required to follow your demands.
_________

Yet you challenge others to respond to your posts here, when probably
none is in your employ.

Your evasion of comment on r.r.a.a. to what I posted has the strong
likelihood that either you didn't comprehend the meaning of the test
report in my link, or that you did, and want to avoid the fact that it
proves your belief about reflections to be invalid.

RF