Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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! |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave" wrote in message ... "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 ---------- 8) Ed, N2ECW |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tilted radiator | Antenna | |||
Circuitry of a radiator | Antenna | |||
internal antenna current flow | Antenna | |||
Mechanics of AC current flow - ? | Antenna | |||
KB9RQZ: WHY DO YOU PERPETUATE LIES AND DISHONESTY IN THE FACE OF GOOGLE ARCHIVES TO THE CONTRARY? | Policy |