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".

"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!

"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?

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"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?


thats right art, keep ignoring me... you can't answer the central question
that all your theory is built on, so that makes the rest of it just so much
more nonsense.

On Jun 1, 6:09*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

...





"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?

thats right art, keep ignoring me... you can't answer the central question
that all your theory is built on, so that makes the rest of it just so much
more nonsense.

David
I am not ignoring you. I have responded to lots and lots of your
questions but you do not respond in kind. It started years ago with a
time varying current being applied to Gass's law of Statics and you
have rebelled to everything said since then, and not once have you
explained the definitive reasons as to why you reject all. As I have
said many times, I do not work for you. I am not in your employ. As
for Maxwell's equations, he accounted for all the forces involved in
the generation of radiation within the boundary of equilibrium. A Yagi
is not in equilibrium so the difference is chalk and cheese. Both
radiate ofcourse tho the sizes do differ as does the bandwidth as well
as the TOA but the point I am making is that if your radiation
assembly is not in equilibrium you are not following the tenents of
Maxwell. A very simple distinction as is the accelleration of the
charge contained by a departing particle compared to a wave of some
sort or energy content that is capable of a straight line projection
without interference from gravitational forces or progressions to the
existance of light, X rays, e.t.c.
Have a very happy day and sleep tight and don't get your knickers in a
twist
Regards
Art