Frank,
It has not yet been proven that current does not flow thru the center
of a radiator.

I thought I did prove it at:
http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpr...in%20depth.htm
Or are you saying that the developers of FEM software at Ansoft,
CST Microwave, and many others do not know what they
are doing? FEM software (and NEC) has been verified countless
times experimentally. Are you saying that nobody knows how to
use test equipment. Check out the testimonials for CST at:
https://www.cst.com/Content/Company/Testimonials.aspx
In fact there is a procedure that will measure the distribution
of current through a cylindrical conductor.

I see it as a manufactured statement to satisfy the idea of an
uncompleted circuit where the current
passes over or thru and in a different direction than the same current
that generates its existence !
It does all this where the books state it is a series circuit where
the paths taken by the current are not identical. Why manufacture all
these happenings to prove what is just a theory, while at the same
time destroying the reasoning of a closed circuit without an
explanation how such actions
creat radiation, especially when it is admitted that radiation is not
fully understood?

It sounds like you are confusing this with a DC circuit.

I think the time as come to review again from the time of Maxwell and
build up afresh in line with
a century of findings and then re evaluate.
A good start would be to evaluate why antenna programs based on
Maxwells laws provide solutions based on equilibrium while discarding

How do you know the programs are based on "Equilibrium"? --
Whatever that means. Can you provide any mathematical or
experimental evidence. Since you have admitted you do not
understand high school math how can you possibly make such
statements.

all other designs. Saying that it can't be! Because" "if true it
would have been discovered a 100 years ago" while silently adding "all
is known about antennas and the patent offices should be closed".

Judging by the "IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation"
nobody thinks all is known about antennas.


Regards
Art

On Jan 15, 7:31*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Frank,
It has not yet been proven that current does not flow thru the center
of a radiator.

I thought I did prove it at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpr...in%20depth.htm
Or are you saying that the developers of FEM software at Ansoft,
CST Microwave, and many others do not know what they
are doing? *FEM software (and NEC) has been verified countless
times experimentally. *Are you saying that nobody knows how to
use test equipment. *Check out the testimonials for CST at:https://www.cst.com/Content/Company/Testimonials.aspx
In fact there is a procedure that will measure the distribution
of current through a cylindrical conductor.

I see it as a manufactured statement to satisfy the idea of an
uncompleted circuit where the current
passes over or thru and in a different direction than the same current
that generates its existence !
It does all this where the books state it is a series circuit where
the paths taken by the current are not identical. Why manufacture all
these happenings to prove what is just a theory, while at the same
time destroying the reasoning of a closed circuit without an
explanation how such actions
creat radiation, especially when it is admitted that radiation is not
fully understood?

It sounds like you are confusing this with a DC circuit.

I think the time as come to review again from the time of Maxwell and
build up afresh in line with
a century of findings and then re evaluate.
A good start would be to evaluate why antenna programs based on
Maxwells laws provide solutions based on equilibrium while discarding

How do you know the programs are based on "Equilibrium"? --
Whatever that means. *Can you provide any mathematical or
experimental evidence. *Since you have admitted you do not
understand high school math how can you possibly make such
statements.

all other designs. Saying that it can't be! *Because" "if true it
would have been discovered a 100 years ago" while silently adding "all
is known about antennas and the patent offices should be closed".

Judging by the "IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation"
nobody thinks all is known about antennas.

Regards
Art

I thought it would be better to accept the responses of the news group
as factual.
Now I must determine why equilibrium is not understood as this is a
requirement
for any radiator vector diagram. I have quite a lot of books that were
recommended
reading in US Universities so I will read thru those for what they say
about equilibrium and why it has been dumped or if Newtons laws have
been corrected e.t.c. Without an understanding of equilibrium all
physics as I know it falls apart!. Thus a chasm is in place between me
and the group and I have to search for the reason.


Thanks to all for your inputs
Art

I thought it would be better to accept the responses of the
news group as factual. Now I must determine why
equilibrium is not understood as this is a requirement for
any radiator vector diagram.

It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by
the term: "Radiator vector diagram".

I have quite a lot of books that were recommended reading
in US Universities so I will read thru those for what they say
about equilibrium........

I have 9 books on electromagnetics and antennas. The word
"Equiblibrium" does not appear in any of the indexes.

......and why it has been dumped or if Newtons laws have
been corrected e.t.c. Without an understanding of equilibrium all
physics as I know it falls apart!. Thus a chasm is in place between me
and the group and I have to search for the reason.

There has been no correction to Newtonian mechanics, and there
is no violation of Newton's laws in electromagnetics.

As for reading books on electromagnetics. I cannot understand how
it is possible without knowledge of math. Do you understand any
of the following?: line integral, surface integral, volume integral,
vector "dot" product, vector "cross" product, gradient, divergence,
curl, "Del", and vector magnetic potential. With these tools
it is possible to calculate the E and H fields at a point in space --
based on an assumption of current distribution. The hard part
of computational electromagnetics is to determine the actual
current distribution on a radiator.

Thanks to all for your inputs
Art

73,

Frank

On Jan 16, 12:18*pm, "Frank" wrote:
I thought it would be better to accept the responses of the
news group as factual. *Now I must determine why
equilibrium is not understood as this is a requirement for
any radiator vector diagram.

It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by
the term: "Radiator vector diagram".

I have quite a lot of books that were recommended reading
in US Universities so I will read thru those for what they say
about equilibrium........

I have 9 books on electromagnetics and antennas. *The word
"Equiblibrium" does not appear in any of the indexes.

......and why it has been dumped or if Newtons laws have
been corrected e.t.c. *Without an understanding of equilibrium all
physics as I know it falls apart!. Thus a chasm is in place between me
and the group and I have to search for the reason.

There has been no correction to Newtonian mechanics, and there
is no violation of Newton's laws in electromagnetics.

As for reading books on electromagnetics. *I cannot understand how
it is possible without knowledge of math. *Do you understand any
of the following?: *line integral, surface integral, volume integral,
vector "dot" product, vector "cross" product, gradient, divergence,
curl, "Del", and vector magnetic potential. *With these tools
it is possible to calculate the E and H fields at a point in space --
based on an assumption of current distribution. *The hard part
of computational electromagnetics is to determine the actual
current distribution on a radiator.

Thanks to all for your inputs
Art

73,

Frank



Frank
As I said earlier, I accept the thought of forward and reverse flow
of AC current together with the resulting contra flow of Eddy currents
on different levels of the surface of a radiator, all at the same
time. Thus at this time there is no pressing reason to expose myself
further in terms of the education that I have retained. Now that
Richard's book has substantiated my aproach via Gauss
I can now procede in the direction of antennas that are not in a
straight line and at varying elevations. Programs on antennas are
available for the user to follow this cause of action which are
committed to Maxwells laws so these efforts will not resolve around my
personal thoughts, just arrays that are termed in equilibrium and the
existance of particles with respect to radiation.
From the very start, when I extended Gaussian law of statics to that
of Maxwell, I have sought council to the effect that consequent
determinations prove the action of particles. Postings pretty much
accept that antenna programs are correct thus I can realistically use
that as a proof.
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought
especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not
accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:18 pm, "Frank" wrote:
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought

thats good, because nobody on here does.

especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not

'equilibrium' is neither required nor a desired part of Gauss's law... which
as i have pointed out has been a part of maxwell's equations since the very
beginning, without any help from you.

accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)

good, go after the cantennas... and don't forget the vent hole to let the
levitating neutrinos escape when they reach the end of the diamagnetic
resistor... the can is probably ferromagnetic so they'll be trapped inside
and explode otherwise!

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:18 pm, "Frank" wrote:
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought

thats good, because nobody on here does.

especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not

'equilibrium' is neither required nor a desired part of Gauss's law...
which as i have pointed out has been a part of maxwell's equations since
the very beginning, without any help from you.

accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)

good, go after the cantennas... and don't forget the vent hole to let the
levitating neutrinos escape when they reach the end of the diamagnetic
resistor... the can is probably ferromagnetic so they'll be trapped inside
and explode otherwise!


--------

In a millenium, folks will look back and view Art as their EMR guru. He was
the first to advocate Zen EMR Theory to the unwashed. No offense to anyone
is intended.

Ed, N2ECW

"Ed Cregger" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:18 pm, "Frank" wrote:
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought

thats good, because nobody on here does.

especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not

'equilibrium' is neither required nor a desired part of Gauss's law...
which as i have pointed out has been a part of maxwell's equations since
the very beginning, without any help from you.

accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)

good, go after the cantennas... and don't forget the vent hole to let the
levitating neutrinos escape when they reach the end of the diamagnetic
resistor... the can is probably ferromagnetic so they'll be trapped
inside and explode otherwise!


--------

In a millenium, folks will look back and view Art as their EMR guru. He
was the first to advocate Zen EMR Theory to the unwashed. No offense to
anyone is intended.

Ed, N2ECW

ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

On Jan 15, 8:39*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


I thought it would be better to accept the responses of the news group
as factual.

http://home.comcast.net/~nm5k/ru.wmv

On Jan 15, 7:31*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Frank,
It has not yet been proven that current does not flow thru the center
of a radiator.

I thought I did prove it at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpr...in%20depth.htm
Or are you saying that the developers of FEM software at Ansoft,
CST Microwave, and many others do not know what they
are doing? *FEM software (and NEC) has been verified countless
times experimentally. *Are you saying that nobody knows how to
use test equipment. *Check out the testimonials for CST at:https://www.cst.com/Content/Company/Testimonials.aspx
In fact there is a procedure that will measure the distribution
of current through a cylindrical conductor.

I see it as a manufactured statement to satisfy the idea of an
uncompleted circuit where the current
passes over or thru and in a different direction than the same current
that generates its existence !
It does all this where the books state it is a series circuit where
the paths taken by the current are not identical. Why manufacture all
these happenings to prove what is just a theory, while at the same
time destroying the reasoning of a closed circuit without an
explanation how such actions
creat radiation, especially when it is admitted that radiation is not
fully understood?

It sounds like you are confusing this with a DC circuit.

I think the time as come to review again from the time of Maxwell and
build up afresh in line with
a century of findings and then re evaluate.
A good start would be to evaluate why antenna programs based on
Maxwells laws provide solutions based on equilibrium while discarding

How do you know the programs are based on "Equilibrium"? --
Whatever that means. *Can you provide any mathematical or
experimental evidence. *Since you have admitted you do not
understand high school math how can you possibly make such
statements.

all other designs. Saying that it can't be! *Because" "if true it
would have been discovered a 100 years ago" while silently adding "all
is known about antennas and the patent offices should be closed".

Judging by the "IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation"
nobody thinks all is known about antennas.

It will be tough to win a case against Art. He gets to play
prosecutor and judge on the same antenna show.
This would be his ruling on your last argument.
http://home.comcast.net/~nm5k/overruled.wmv