On May 7, 2:31*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
But Cecil the Bugcatcher does not conform with Maxwell's laws

In what way does a Bugcatcher not conform with
Maxwell's equations? In "Fields and Waves ...",
Ramo and Whinnery give the actual Maxwell equations
for a loading coil.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

I looked up the references and here are my comments
1 a helical is not in a state of equilibrium
2 A radiator that is not a WL or multiple thereof is not in
equilibrium
3 It refered to boundary laws and then mis used them.
4 The beginning was littered with "assume" and terms of" Aproximation"
5 It then went on to change the configuration of a helix to a
configuration that
he thinks he has solved when using the approximations. He also assumed
that the speed of light could be exceeded
6 I saw no evidence of accounting for the flux in a clockwise versus a
counterclockwise action tho apparently he made assumptions that
circular motion was zero.
7Frankly Cecil he knew what answer was to be accepted by reviwing
Krauss's work and devised his mathematics accordingly
8 Krauss's work was on the subject of a helical that was not in
equilibrium which thus forced him to include the helix angle which
also is nowhere to be seen in Maxwells laws.
The reference he used is not credible but name dropping of those that
he agrees with
is a confidence builder for those you judge plagurism as being with co
believers.
This is the same as those who defined light as a wave where academics
followed
with smiles and without question.
It all still comes back to the fact that in boundary laws the contents
must be in equilibrium and nothing about your antennamatches that
requirement
Sorry about that Cecil No harm meant
Art

On May 7, 9:16*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 7, 2:31*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
But Cecil the Bugcatcher does not conform with Maxwell's laws

In what way does a Bugcatcher not conform with
Maxwell's equations? In "Fields and Waves ...",
Ramo and Whinnery give the actual Maxwell equations
for a loading coil.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

I looked up the references and here are my comments
1 a helical is not in a state of equilibrium
2 A radiator that is not a WL or multiple thereof is not in
equilibrium
3 It refered to boundary laws and then mis used them.
4 The beginning was littered with "assume" and terms of" Aproximation"
5 It then went on to change the configuration of a helix to a
configuration that
he thinks he has solved when using the approximations. He also assumed
that the speed of light could be exceeded
6 I saw no evidence of accounting for the flux in a clockwise versus a
counterclockwise action tho apparently he made assumptions that
circular motion was zero.
7Frankly Cecil he knew what answer was to be accepted by reviwing
Krauss's work and devised his mathematics accordingly
8 Krauss's work was on the subject of a helical that was not in
equilibrium which thus forced him to include the helix angle which
also is nowhere to be seen in Maxwells laws.
The reference he used is not credible but name dropping of those that
he agrees with
is a confidence builder for those you judge plagurism as being with co
believers.
This is the same as those who defined light as a wave where academics
followed
with smiles and without question.
It all still comes back to the fact that in boundary laws the contents
must be in equilibrium and nothing about your antennamatches that
requirement
Sorry about that Cecil No harm meant
Art

Oooops, I forgot the real biggy.
You mentioned that a spark was emmited from the end of your antenna. I
am sure you are aware that this is symbolic of end effect.
Maxwell has no equation for end effect ! Nor did he see the need to
account for that force. Why? Because that is representitive of a
radiator that is NOT in equilibrium. It takes a circuit of 1 WL or
multiple there of to reach the state of equilibrium.
This is why the radiator at Quito Equador was changed to a quad ala 1
WL just to get rid of "end effect" which is of no help in terms of
drectivity just a waste of radiation energy. I will say it again,
boundary laws as does all the laws of our Universe demand
that a state of equilibrium is present such that it meets Newtons law
that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" which in
mathematical terms for the boundary aproach is that all forces summed
equals zero.
I feel that this debate has now come to an end. Maxwell's laws are not
applicable or valid when a radiator is not in equilibrium. And
resonance does not equate to equilibrium because end effect is not
present and thus not applicable with respect to Maxwell.
Best regards
Art'

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I feel that this debate has now come to an end. Maxwell's laws are not
applicable or valid when a radiator is not in equilibrium. And
resonance does not equate to equilibrium because end effect is not
present and thus not applicable with respect to Maxwell.

so when can we expect the publication of "art's equations" to fill this gap?

On May 8, 7:34*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I feel that this debate has now come to an end. Maxwell's laws are not
applicable or valid when a radiator is not in equilibrium. And
resonance does not equate to equilibrium because *end effect is not
present and thus not applicable with respect to Maxwell.

so when can we expect the publication of "art's equations" to fill this gap?

David
All hams armed with the above fact can now pursue experimentation with
abandon for themselves. It will be decades before science can accept
change. So for those hams willing to accept change and become do'ers,
that is very important to me, the lack of sun spots will not push them
away from the hobby. I am old and not good looking but like Susan
Boyle what I am sharing with all will last a life time.
For the "gurus" the next challenge is to devise an equation that will
account for all forces involved in the production of "end effect" that
will withstand rigourous examination. In other words David, nasty
words with contempt have soured my desire to share for the moment
Regards
Art...,..xg

In the corner of every battle field
there lies a piece of England
But for me life, which is good, goes on

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
In other words David, nasty
words with contempt have soured my desire to share for the moment

I don't know weather to be sad that i'll miss your great words of wisdom, or
happy that your gibberish may be quelled for a while. Spring is here, so i
have my own REAL antenna work to do, so i guess i really don't need your
imaginary stuff anyway.

On May 8, 11:59*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

In other words David, nasty
words with contempt have soured my desire to share for the moment

I don't know weather to be sad that i'll miss your great words of wisdom, or
happy that your gibberish may be quelled for a while. *Spring is here, so i
have my own REAL antenna work to do, so i guess i really don't need your
imaginary stuff anyway.

Atta boy,
Keep using that slide rule from your school days, there is absolutely
no reason why you should change and update

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Atta boy,
Keep using that slide rule from your school days, there is absolutely
no reason why you should change and update

actually, i think i still have one or two of those laying around here
somewhere.

Art Unwin wrote:

Atta boy,
Keep using that slide rule from your school days, there is absolutely
no reason why you should change and update

Art

Your answers are just as wrong with a slide rule, an HP15C, Fortran IV
on a 360/65, C on a 64 bit AMD or anything else you can find.

And denigrating slide rules is silly. Most of the world that surrounds
you was calculated with a slide rule's resolution. When used properly
they give answers that are as accurate as is needed for engineering.

You obviously have no clue as to what it takes to do engineering
calculations.

Richard, if I used terms improperly, I ask forgiveness.

tom
K0TAR

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I looked up the references and here are my comments
1 a helical is not in a state of equilibrium

of course it is, there is an equals in the equation so it must be in
'equal'ibrium according to your definition.

2 A radiator that is not a WL or multiple thereof is not in
equilibrium

my half wave radiator, and my infinitesimal dipole both have equals signs in
their equations to they must be in your state of 'equal'ibrium also!