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, 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

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
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.

then get him to come back and explain himself, you obviously can't
understand what he was talking about if he is that far above you.

As yet nobody has shown any reason why the mathematics should not be
accepted so until that point comes about my work stands

you haven't shown any math that could be disproven... besides adding one 't'
to an equation that didn't need it.

On Jan 4, 3:54*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

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.

then get him to come back and explain himself, you obviously can't
understand what he was talking about if he is that far above you.

As yet nobody has shown any reason why the mathematics should not be
accepted so until that point comes about my work stands

you haven't shown any math that could be disproven... besides adding one 't'
to an equation that didn't need it.

You are welcome to your opinion! To change my thoughts how ever you
need to provide fact that specifically
address what I state as what is untrue. If you can't be specific in
providing relavent discussion
then I am comfortable with what I have found.
I would love to read something that addresses my findings
that prove them to be in error so I may rethink my position, a
position that any
engineer should be happy to do rather than throwing things to hurt.
I have made no effort to hide my identity as the owner of the stated
thoughts.
The foundation of my work is the elargement of a static law to make it
a dynamic field in accordance with the laws of Maxwell.
Since you and others have rejected the feasability of that aproach as
well as the accompanying math I see no reason why you should pursue
me! I agree to disagree, what is so wrong with that?
Art
I am open to changing my mind if proven in error but the fact is that
all I get is diversions to discuss at the behest of other posters

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, 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

Art wrote:
"I recognise that with the above atatements I am overturning facts that
are accepted where all the statements is a continuity of showing that
the law of statics when made into a arbitrary dynamic field in
equilibrium provides of equilibrium and particles together with particle
spin provided by the action of the weak force in the science of
radiation."

Bafflegab! Who needs it?

Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar on page 2 of "Introduction To
Electromagnetic Fields":
"In 1864, Maxwell proposed "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic
Field" and thus unified the experimental researches of over a century
through a set of equations known as Maxwell`s equations. These equations
were later verified experimentally by Hertz in 1887. It is generally
accepted that all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena are governed by
Maxwell`s equations."

No corrections or addenda are needed.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Jan 4, 4:44*pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

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

Bafflegab! Who needs it?

Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar on page 2 of "Introduction To
Electromagnetic Fields":
"In 1864, Maxwell proposed "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic
Field" and thus unified the experimental researches of over a century
through a set of equations known as Maxwell`s equations. These equations
were later verified experimentally by Hertz in 1887. It is generally
accepted that all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena are governed by
Maxwell`s equations."

No corrections or addenda are needed.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI *

Bull.
Maxwell made an addition to the laws provided.
It was this addition he was lauded for. The addition he made
was to bring the formula suplied to him for condensing by justifying
the = sign
which is required for mathematics to show equilibrium exists and
Newtons law was being followed.
What he did was to ensure that all the units designated added up to
zero. To do this he added the Maxwell correction
which he named as the displacement current now designated as the root
of skin depth resistance.
It was decades later that Foucault found a match that satisfied the
metrics that Maxwell addedto satify the requirements of mathematics.
Maxwell supplied no evidence of experimentation of his own at that
time and was functioning as a mathematician
in the condensing of laws established by others via
experimentation ,.
the majority of which were seen to be duplicates.
I have read nothing that disputes the above account tho the lack of
communication during those times suggest that it was others
like Heaviside and Green and many others were the owners of various
discoveries such that arrangements were changed to disguise theft.
This same problem is still occuring in academia where a scientist was
laid off after a discovery he made and the remaining two scientists
took ownership of this years Nobel prize..
Some books condense this history by ommision but these acts do not
rewrite history or apply redactions to the white paper he wrote
that still exists.Now Richard, if your posting was made to suggest
something else you are welcome to respond.