On Apr 17, 7:07*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Apr 16, 9:48 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

I don't worry about it Cecil but I am concerned at the number of
people who consider themselves engineers. Remember that nobody on this
group has a true understanding of Maxwells equations! Nobody has
proved Maxwell's laws can be proved by adding a time varing field to
the Gaussian law of Statics. In fact, it is denied by ALL on this
group, Engineers?

yes art, electrical engineers, like me, do understand maxwell's equations..
and any of them worth their salt will explain, like i have done many times,
that it is unecessary to add an explicit time variable to the equations
because they are valid at every instant of time... so you end up with
f(t)=f(t) which is redundant and doesn't help with the solution of the
fields and waves. *you have admitted that you don't know fields and waves
and that you are not an ee, yet you continue to try to put down those who
show a true understanding of the equations and their underlying assumptions.
Hello David
I am comfortable that the addition of a time varying field to the laws
of statics is a proof of Maxwell. In fact there are many proofs of
Maxwsells equations if you read your field and waves books Chapter 2
if I recall as well as the appendix. Dr Davis also stated so and
nobody was able to prove him wrong either. So as I have always said I
am comfortable with the proof.




you further demonstrate this by talking about lumped impedances in reference
to maxwell's equations and antennas. *maxwell's equations describe fields
and waves, not the conductors and elements that generate them. *they
reference the currents and fields, not the wires, capacitors, and inductors.
you can derive the properties of inductors and capacitors from maxwell's
equations, but you have to look deep inside them and apply the basic laws
that make up maxwell's equation to describe the lumped elements.

Well again I disagree with you. Maxwells laws as far as we are
concerned deals with radiation and maximum efficiency with the basic
of equilibrium. As Newton used the term it was a cosmic law as is all
his laws thus equilibrium or balance is based on the cosmic which
includes outside Earths sphere, a basic for every action and reaction
statement. When you introduce a lumped load into radiation without the
equal and opposite you have violated Maxwell and Newtons laws, very
simple. This is why Maxwell does not include a metric for lumped loads
when calculating maximum efficiency via the boundary method.
Now as far as waves are concerned science recognises that radiation
presents observations that suggest waves but none of these are proven
and I believe that particles dominate which if you go along with
statics laws is also another proof.





you have yet to explain where equilibrium is required in maxwell's
equations. *by definition they rely on non-equilibrium conditions to set up
waves. *you can't have a wave while you are in equilibrium, something has to
be putting energy into the system and something has to be moving, that
sounds like non-equilibrium to me.

Not so, review the gyroscope action and the sedgewick vehicle all of
which rely on balanced circulating rotation within the cosmos.
But disregard all the things above that you cannot digest. Use a
computer program on antennas that has the option to change human input
so that the laws of Maxwell
are fiollowed implicity. You put in a vertical design and request
maximum gain using the parameters supplied by Maxwell which requires
cosmic balance or equilibrium.
Antenna computer programs will always put aside the planar design as
it lacks equilibrium and will replace it with a tipped vertical
antenna.
So David you have now put your feet into another puzzle by your falure
to digest science. Science and the patent office accept antenna
computer programs output
which is opposite to your thinking so now you are surrounded by a
morass because you denied the good Doctors knowledge of physics.
I accept that that you and others do not have a good understanding of
equilibrium which generates faults in all associated science problems
so our minds will never meet. If you delve into books on Maxwell you
will eventually fall upon the use of Gauss. Since there are so many
proofs available authors shun from showing the Gaussian connection
because of the different metrics involved not because it is not a
viable proof. You have a simple option to prove what is correct, use a
antenna program with an optimiser and determine what a vertical
antenna looks like when seeking maximum efficiency, believe me the
radiator will be tipped. So forget every thing else and show the World
why computer programs produce faulty results when using your logic.
With the use of my logic I have produced a antenna for top band that
is rotatable and directional so something I have done is correct and
computer programs based on Maxwell produce the same results. Go
figure.
Now with respect to a dish antenna with CP. Can the dish supply a
lower TOA than a planar design at the same height?
Regards
Art.
Ps Mechanical engineering requires adherence to equilibrium, it is not
just a electrical thing.I also know little regarding fields and waves
but I am profficient in the application
of fields operating at the speed of light and their impact on
particles for communication
and where impact requires mass.