"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

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.

Art wrote:
"Bull."

Maxwell published and his equations have been successfully used ever
since.

My ARRL Antenna Book says in its chapter on "Computer Programs":
"The availability of computers in the 1960s provided antenna designers
with an alternative. They could develop software to simulate the
performance of antennas. In general, these techniques either numerically
solve Maxwell`s equations by discretizing the problem using intergral
techniques such as Moment Methods (MOM) as discussed in Sec. 14-11, or
differential techniques such as finite elements or finite
difference-time domain."

Is the "Antenna Book" bull too?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Jan 5, 11:06*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Bull."

Maxwell published and his equations have been successfully used ever
since.

My ARRL Antenna Book says in its chapter on "Computer Programs":
"The availability of computers in the 1960s provided antenna designers
with an alternative. They could develop software to simulate the
performance of antennas. In general, these techniques either numerically
solve Maxwell`s equations by discretizing the problem using intergral
techniques such as Moment Methods (MOM) as discussed in Sec. 14-11, or
differential techniques such as finite elements or finite
difference-time domain."

Is the "Antenna Book" bull too?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

O.K. you win. Maxwell never did add the correction factor later to be
known as the displacement factor.
It is not known how that addition came about as Gauss Faraday and
others never included it in their findings
It is known however, that the name assigned to this addition was by
Maxwell while others were watching T.V.
Obviously somebody had sneaked in an addition to the supplied data
while others were engrossed on the T.V.
as the football game was ongoing.
Maxwell and computer programs were not mentioned at that time nor was
the ARRL handbook, these came about much later
where the antenna was viewed as a vanishingly thin radiator where the
inside diameter was too small to non existent because of the skin
depth that met each other from both side thus cutting of passage of
anything from the top of a radiator.
Because of the reflection created by the thin radiator the current
refersed direction and travelled down much faster as the circular
fiels
now aided the flow of current instead of resisting it like it did on
the upward direction. Richard, right on. You have got it right without
a doubt. I am now convinced. Presumably you are happy now you have
been vindicated and can now put your pen and pencil down.

Art wrote:
"You have got it right eithout a doubt. I am now convinced."

Iappreciate the concession. Maxwell by most accounts richly deserves the
credit he won.

I received over a dozen books for Christmas all on electromagnetism. I
am trying to become familiar with them. One of the group is, "The
Holistic Inspirations of Physics" by Val Duser. Chapter 18 is titled:
"Maxwell, Field Theory, and Mechanical Models". On page 274 it says:
"In the history of the rise of the concept of the electromagnetic field,
James Clerk Maxwell holds pride of place. Maxwell`s equations of
electromagnetism are a part of classical physics least modified by the
introduction of twentieth century theories. Maxwell`s equations trumped
both Newtonian mechanics and classical thermodynamics in the formulation
of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Einstein modified Newton`s
laws of motion in order to preserve Maxwell`s equations in special
relativity. Max Planck modified the laws of dlassical thermodynamics
(making energy discrete rather than continuous) to preserve Maxwell`s
theory of radiation in early quantum theory." There`s more but I`ll not
bore more. Read the book.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:52:12 -0600, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

I received over a dozen books for Christmas all on electromagnetism. I
am trying to become familiar with them. One of the group is, "The
Holistic Inspirations of Physics" by Val Duser. Chapter 18 is titled:
"Maxwell, Field Theory, and Mechanical Models". On page 274 it says:
"In the history of the rise of the concept of the electromagnetic field,
James Clerk Maxwell holds pride of place. Maxwell`s equations of
electromagnetism are a part of classical physics least modified by the
introduction of twentieth century theories. Maxwell`s equations trumped
both Newtonian mechanics and classical thermodynamics in the formulation
of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Einstein modified Newton`s
laws of motion in order to preserve Maxwell`s equations in special
relativity. Max Planck modified the laws of dlassical thermodynamics
(making energy discrete rather than continuous) to preserve Maxwell`s
theory of radiation in early quantum theory." There`s more but I`ll not
bore more. Read the book.

Hi Richard,

A commendable selection to quote, and far from boring.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Jan 3, 10:37*am, Art Unwin wrote:
There is absolutely NO evidence that
reflection occurs in any shape or form at the
material ends of a radiator and all that pertains
to such. * *PERIOD.
____________

Art, the link below leads to empirical proof that such reflections
exist.

H. Gihring and G. Brown of RCA measured the relative current
distribution parallel to the axis of monopole radiators of several
lengths and widths, using an r-f current probe driving a thermal
meter.

The current distribution measured for the three radiator lengths
plotted all show the presence of reflections from the top of the
vertical wire, and in all three cases, current falls to zero at the
end of the radiator.

These are all fractional wavelength radiators not meeting your
definition of an antenna in "equilibrium."

This demonstrates that r-f current does not travel on the outside of a
wire on the way to the open end, and return from the open end along a
non-radiating path down the center of that conductor, as you believe.

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

RF

"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 10:37 am, Art Unwin wrote:
There is absolutely NO evidence that
reflection occurs in any shape or form at the
material ends of a radiator and all that pertains
to such. PERIOD.
Art, the link below leads to empirical proof that such reflections
exist.

don't confuse him with facts, especially facts out of books... they are all
out of date since they don't have his latest theories included in them.