On May 29, 8:37*pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:
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.

Speaking of texts, 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.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

Did it state that radiation was waves or particles and how he can
prove it ?
Is this in line with your extensive design of antennas?

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 29, 8:37 pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:
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.
Speaking of texts, 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.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

Did it state that radiation was waves or particles and how he can
prove it ?
Is this in line with your extensive design of antennas?

No comments needed here.

tom
K0TAR

On May 29, 9:30*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 29, 8:37 pm, tom wrote:
tom wrote:
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.
Speaking of texts, 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.

I have no idea why he had this book or where he got it, but am grateful
to get it.

tom
K0TAR

Did it state that radiation was waves or particles and how he can
prove it ?
Is this in line with your extensive design of antennas?

No comments needed here.

tom
K0TAR

What ever is the matter with you? You seem to want to pick a fight for
some reason.
So you are a qualified antenna engineer and you dislike my aproach to
antennas because I am a mechanical engineer or what. I experiment with
antennas which means I am not totally governed by the books and I
enjoy that. I also study so that my results can be understood
mathematically. 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
was confirmed when the term equilibrium flumoxed all of you. Now you
claim efficiencies of some sort, does it show up on a receiver S
metre? I doubt it. And you claim 98% efficiency but supply zero
parameters.Heck, I can get a computer program to give me figures
better than that but it is meaningless
But all of this really doesn't matter on this newsgroup, I am not a
antenna engineer so in no way am I encroaching on the esteem you feel
you posses as a antenna engineer because of your electrical
background. Yes, you know more about antennas that is written in the
books, because you committed it to memory whether it was correct or
not to pass an exam. Feel better now?
Sleep well
Art

"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 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 in message
...

"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.

come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics".