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