"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...


EM or ElectroMagnetic theory does indeed include charged particles.
Maxwell's equations are definately based on charged particles. just
where does the 'i' term come from if not from moving charges?

Take a glance in Maxwell's Treatise. There is the incompressible massles
fluid.
Maxwell did the math to Faraday ideas. But with one exception. Faraday
discovered the atomic nature of electricity (at electrolise).
Maxwell ignored it. He prefered fluids and whirls. Todays teachers also
prefere it.

and where does the charge term in art's favorite Gauss' law that is part
of Maxwell's equations come from if not from charged particles??

Each genius wrote his own Electrodynamics. They are in some points
similar. But the incompressible fluid is only in Maxwell's.
S*

the final result of the collection of Maxwell's equations does not rely on
an incompressible massless fluid. It says nothing about the nature of
space, only the relationship between the charges and fields... which is all
that is needed to completely describe charged particle and electro-magnetic
field interactions.

On Jun 5, 12:03*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
*"Dave" .. .



EM or ElectroMagnetic theory does indeed include charged particles.
Maxwell's equations are definately based on charged particles. *just where
does the 'i' term come from if not from moving charges?

Take a glance in Maxwell's Treatise. There is the incompressible massles
fluid.
Maxwell did the math to Faraday ideas. But with one exception. Faraday
discovered the atomic nature of electricity (at electrolise).
Maxwell ignored it. He prefered fluids and whirls. Todays teachers also
prefere it.

and where does the charge term in art's favorite Gauss' law that is part of
Maxwell's equations come from if not from charged particles??

Each genius wrote his own Electrodynamics. They are in some points similar.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

snip drivel

until art can provide a reference to the equation for the" Gaussian law of
statics" you should distrust everything he says as being baseless rambling
junk.

On Jun 5, 1:56*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

snip drivel

until art can provide a reference to the equation for the" Gaussian law of
statics" you should distrust everything he says as being baseless rambling
junk.

David is quite correct. Unless the above is fully understood and in
line with all the sciences
as YOU know it then you should push it away as there is no progress to
your understanding
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jun 5, 1:56 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
snip drivel

until art can provide a reference to the equation for the" Gaussian law
of
statics" you should distrust everything he says as being baseless
rambling
junk.

David is quite correct. Unless the above is fully understood and in
line with all the sciences
as YOU know it then you should push it away as there is no progress to
your understanding
Art

hey, i was right about something! of course there is no way for him to
understand the above since even you can't explain it or provide a reference!

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
It seems to me that the radiating elements radiate from the ends.

The maximum radiation occurs where the electrons are
experiencing the maximum deceleration. That doesn't
appear to be at the ends of a dipole.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jun 5, 4:29*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
It seems to me that the radiating elements radiate from the ends.

The maximum radiation occurs where the electrons are
experiencing the maximum deceleration. That doesn't
appear to be at the ends of a dipole.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

That is the second time you have suggested that a radiater
loses mass during use. Where did you get that idea from?
Art

Cecil Moore wrote:
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
But what radiate?

Particles called photons radiate.

Photons are radiated. They do not, themselves radiate.

Photons are
emitted by decelerating electrons.

True, but Bremsstrahlung (synchrotron) radiation has nothing to do with
antennas.

ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:

Are you going
to bad-mouth me for this poor choice of words five years
hence?

Are you going to stop beating your wife?

Photons are
emitted by decelerating electrons.

True, but Bremsstrahlung (synchrotron) radiation has nothing to do
with antennas.

Exactly true, but Bremsstrahlung radiation also has
nothing to do with free electrons in a conductor which
are the source of the radiation from the antenna. You
might as well have said "Exactly true, but tomorrow is
June 6".

Also true, unlike "Photons are emitted by decelerating electrons"
otherwise known as Bremsstrahlung.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Also true, unlike "Photons are emitted by decelerating electrons"
otherwise known as Bremsstrahlung.

You must be drunk because I know you cannot possibly be
that ignorant. You are saying that since all calico cats
are female, then all females must be calico cats. Good Grief!

FYI, RF photons are indeed emitted by decelerating electrons
which are being decelerated by the RF source field supplied
to the antenna conductor. It has absolutely nothing to do with
Bremsstrahlung radiation which is completely outside the
context of these postings. Congratulations on another feeble
attempt at a diversionary obfuscation. You seem to be trying
for the record for such nonsense.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com