"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

In the History you find how many people analysed the issue:
longitudinal vs. transversal. In 1905 all stop.
But after 1905 peole build antennas. And they do not worry what the
radiation is like.
Sunner or later the issue appears again.
S*

only when time travelers bring back scientists from the 1800's... or
people like you try to reinvent the discarded theories of old.

Some theories are taught some not. But people after 25 can use what
they want. It seems to me that engineering people do not use the EM
theory.
S*


Theories that aren't taught have probably been dropped for a good reason.
usually because they are wrong or don't do anything useful. I don't know
about other engineers but i use EM theory, all my antennas were designed
using it, and i test it regularly with my own equipment... it has never
failed me.

You do not use the EM theory. In EM no electrons. You use electrons:
"Electronics is a branch of science and technology that deals with the
flow of electrons through nonmetallic conductors, mainly semiconductors
such as silicon. It is distinct from electrical science and technology,
which deal with the flow of electrons and other charge carriers through
metal conductors such as copper. This distinction started around 1906 with
the invention by Lee De Forest of the triode. Until 1950 this field was
called "radio technology" because its principal application was the design
and theory of radio transmitters, receivers and vacuum tubes."

Electrons never failed us.

if you want to talk with MODERN engineers, then you should use MODERN
definitions. i don't know who wrote that wikipedia definition but you would
find it very hard to work with just non-metalic stuff in the electronics I
know. even the smallest integrated circuits use metalic conductors to
connect components and for connections to the outside world. All radios
(aren't radios electronic) use metallic antennas in one form or another...
check some other definitions:

the branch of physics that deals with the emission and effects of electrons
and with the use of electronic devices
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

electronic - of or relating to electronics; concerned with or using devices
that operate on principles governing the behavior of electrons; "electronic
devices"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

the branch of technology concerned with the development and application of
circuits or systems using electron devices, including magnetic amplifiers,
transistors
http://www.tki.org.nz/r/technology/c...m/p85_86_e.php

electronic - Pertaining to the energies, distributions, and behaviors of
electrons; see mechanical.
e-drexler.com/d/06/00/Nanosystems/glossary/glossary_e.html

do not 'electronic devices' include transformers?? aren't most of them made
out of metallic conductors?? what about capacitors, don't most of them have
metallic plates? magnetic amplifiers are most definately made of metallic
conductors.

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? 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??

"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*

"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!