Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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". |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave" wrote in message ... "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". can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. give us this magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on! |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "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". can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. give us this magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on! come on art, one specific simple question...cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". or are you going to pull another vanishing act and come back later just to start fresh with more bafflegab? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
spots | Antenna | |||
Sun Spots | Shortwave | |||
Sun Spots During an Ice Age? | Antenna | |||
Waiting for 'spots... | CB |