"tom" wrote in message
. net...
tom wrote:

snip

... one of my co-workers gave me a wonderful paperback
textbook last week "The Theory and Design of Circular Antenna Arrays" by
James D. Tillman, Jr., The University of Tennessee Engineering
Experiment Station, 1966.

The design, testing, scope pictures and the wonderful racks of gear they
built makes for a great piece of work.

Just a guess, but maybe it deals with the Wullenweber [or Wullenwever]
antenna, described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wullenweber and
elsewhere.

The article cites Hanza, Okinawa, Japan, where I was stationed in 1965/66
and worked inside the antenna building. The basement was filled with
multicouplers and several very large spinning goniometers to pick off the
desired signals. It also cites the array at Imperial Beach, which is not
far. I see it several times a year but it was abandoned years ago and may
be coming down. I wonder who gets all that nice RF cable.

"Off-topic Sal"

"tom" wrote
. net...
Art Unwin wrote:
And we have not figured out radio radiation yet, even tho we have a
multitude of formulae from a century ago!

Art, please do not include the majority of us here in your statements.

What you really should be saying is YOU have not figured out EM radiation
yet.

I for one can design and build, with the help of STANDARD TEXTS
(especially those many decades old!), almost any type of antenna or
antenna array anyone could ever need. And it will work exactly as
predicted if one takes into account normal environmental variables, such
as buildings, trees and ground conductivity.

Everybody should see that engineering people know his job.

This isn't unknown unpredictable territory, regardless of your claims,
none of which have been proven, by the way. This stuff works, and we know
how, and it's not the way you claim.

You all know how. You have yours own STANDARD TEXTS. But I do not know the
one thing. Which part of the antenna radiate.
See;
(http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

"According to theory, if electromagnetic waves were spreading from the
oscillator sparks"

The theory is from XIX century. The oscillating sparks are in the centre of
the Hertz dipole.
What do you assume in your predictions. Are the radio waves radiated from
the end (no current) of an antena or from the places of the wire where the
current is max?
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"tom" wrote
. net...
Art Unwin wrote:
And we have not figured out radio radiation yet, even tho we have a
multitude of formulae from a century ago!
What do you assume in your predictions. Are the radio waves radiated from
the end (no current) of an antena or from the places of the wire where the
current is max?
S*

both, and neither, art's radiation comes from magical levitating
antidiamagnetic neutrinos from the sun that jump off of antennas when the
current flows.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 29, 9:30 pm, tom wrote:
Now I am not an antenna engineer but when you and others
could not relate the mathematics of Gaussian statics to Maxwell I
realised that the so called gurus were not experts after all and this

I did, and you still refused to accept that Gauss's law IS part of Maxwell's
equations as they are published in every text book in the last 100 years or
so.

was confirmed when the term equilibrium flumoxed all of you.

because equilibrium has no place in electromagnetic radiation which by
definition is a flow of energy, therefore not in equilibrium... no flow, no
radiation... so your magical equilibrium antennas can't radiate, which is
pretty much what everyone agrees on.

On May 30, 5:34*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On May 29, 9:30 pm, tom wrote:

Now I am not an antenna engineer but when you and others
could not relate the mathematics of Gaussian statics to Maxwell I
realised that the so called gurus were not experts after all and this

I did, and you still refused to accept that Gauss's law IS part of Maxwell's
equations as they are published in every text book in the last 100 years or
so.

was confirmed when the term equilibrium flumoxed all of you.

because equilibrium has no place in electromagnetic radiation which by
definition is a flow of energy, therefore not in equilibrium... no flow, no
radiation... so your magical equilibrium antennas can't radiate, which is
pretty much what everyone agrees on.


Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.
Waves have no part in that picture can'tyou get that into your head.
The Moon creats waves The Sun does not
Again "statics" which is the subject of particles is what I was
talking about.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.

Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference,
other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If you can't do
that, provide the specific equation you are refering to.

On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:09:45 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote:
On May 29, 4:21?pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
For what it's worth, the latest prediction:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ction.htm?list...

ac6xg

Interesting Jim but just a small bit of knowledge. The Cern experiment
scheduled to start this year seems to me to be an attempt to stop
particles in their tracks faster that the Earth's atmosphere can.

It sure doesn't take you long to hijack and deflect a thread into a
Troll-A-Rama.

On May 30, 9:35*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.

Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference,
other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". *If you can't do
that, provide the specific equation you are refering to.

I always thought Art had confused statics with statistics.

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"tom" wrote
. net...
Art Unwin wrote:
And we have not figured out radio radiation yet, even tho we have a
multitude of formulae from a century ago!
What do you assume in your predictions. Are the radio waves radiated
from the end (no current) of an antena or from the places of the wire
where the current is max?
S*

both, and neither, art's radiation comes from magical levitating
antidiamagnetic neutrinos from the sun that jump off of antennas when the
current flows.

Earlier Art wrote: "For your information you have never built an antenna
that conforms in its
entirety to Maxwell';s laws thus you cannot possibly understand
radiation as presented by Maxwell. For instance, Einstein studied
Maxwell's laws in the hope of finding the properties of the "weak"
force. He failed. He then decided to move away from standard physics
to look at things from another view point but still failed."

So Art is looking for the next theory. It is a good way to know the results
of experiments. Maxwell did not see the antenas. You all do. Tell than us
which part radiate the radio waves.
S*

On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:43:45 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:
"Dave" wrote
...
both, and neither,
which part radiate the radio waves.

I can see a struggle developing here between you and Art as to who has
the claim to wear the cap and bells.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC