Years of discussion on this same subject has been a matter of lies,
misinterpretations and a determination to obstruct change.
All of these discussion rest on a statement made years ago which has
since gone on to many tangential discussions based on untruths.
The original statement, made by me was:

"If you add a time varying field to the laws of Statics by Gauss the
mathematic results are in full conformance with Maxwells laws"

It is this statement that the group is up in arms about ! Yet they
want me to explain the antenna that is a direct result of the above
statement. A statement they refuse to accept where their response has
been character
assasination which has failed because I am still here.
It is a simple statement which is exact and true which all are
fighting to prevent this from being accepted. Why? Because of a
reluctance to embrace change because of age.
Thus for this representative group they are content that all is known
as printed in the books and trying to convince the World there is no
need for further discussion. So I ask, what is the real reason hams
take this position if in fact they are represented by this newsgroup
of self perceived experts?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Years of discussion on this same subject has been a matter of lies,
misinterpretations and a determination to obstruct change.
All of these discussion rest on a statement made years ago which has
since gone on to many tangential discussions based on untruths.
The original statement, made by me was:

"If you add a time varying field to the laws of Statics by Gauss the
mathematic results are in full conformance with Maxwells laws"

my statement still stands. Gauss's law IS one of Maxwell's four equations,
and it doesn't need you adding a (t) to it to make it work any better than
it has for the last hundred years or so. The basis is that Gauss's law is
independent of time, so it is true AT ANY TIME, it doesn't need a time
parameter to make it work. if you really want to you can add a (t) on both
sides of the equation, but it won't change anything, it just clutters up the
notation.

On Sep 5, 4:59*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Years of discussion on this same subject has been a matter of lies,
misinterpretations and a determination to obstruct change.
All of these discussion rest on a statement made years ago which has
since gone on to many tangential discussions based on untruths.
* * * *The original statement, made by me was:

"If you add a time varying field to the laws of Statics by Gauss the
mathematic results are in full conformance with Maxwells laws"

my statement still stands. *Gauss's law IS one of Maxwell's four equations,
and it doesn't need you adding a (t) to it to make it work any better than
it has for the last hundred years or so. *The basis is that Gauss's law is
independent of time, so it is true AT ANY TIME, it doesn't need a time
parameter to make it work. *if you really want to you can add a (t) on both
sides of the equation, but it won't change anything, it just clutters up the
notation.

O.K. No problem
Now let us see what others have to say. After all it is a academic
question
related to electrical engineering and there are many engineers around
beyond the self perceived versions.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:10:38 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 5, 4:59*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

O.K. No problem
Now let us see what others have to say. After all it is a academic
question
related to electrical engineering and there are many engineers around
beyond the self perceived versions.

You have mentioned there are several universities in your area. Why
not present your questions and theories in such an academic venue?

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:10:38 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Now let us see what others have to say. After all it is a academic
question
related to electrical engineering and there are many engineers around
beyond the self perceived versions.

Bachelor O'Science, Electrical and Electronic Engineering.
Cal Poly, Pomona (1971).

1. There is no such thing as Gauss's Law of Statatics, Statics,
Statistics, or Silliness. Please find and use a spelling chequer.

2. Maxwell's first two equations are Gauss's Law for electric fields
and Gauss's Law for magnetic fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#General_formulation

3. Gauss's Law roughly states that the total electric flux through a
closed surface is proportional to the total electric charge enclosed
within that surface. Note that neither the flux or the charge are
moving.

4. Unless you want to add quantum or relativistic variables, a static
field or charge does not need to have a time variable. If you insist
on adding it to Gauss's Law, it will appear identically on both sides
of the equation and cancel. That's because you cannot have time
moving at different rates on both sides of an equality.

Youtube lecture on Gauss's Law (from India):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whv_d-fBCg0
It's 1 hour long. The speaker is very good at deriving Gauss's Law
from Coulomb's. I hate to admit how much I had forgotten. So far,
I've watched about half the lecture. I'll watch the rest later
tonite.





--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:








Bachelor O'Science, Electrical and Electronic Engineering.
Cal Poly, Pomona (1971).

Aren't you the guy who I got a manual for a PRR-9/PRT-4 squad radio
from my reserver unit just before you graduated?

Seems to me you wanted to put it on 6M.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:15:07 GMT, wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Bachelor O'Science, Electrical and Electronic Engineering.
Cal Poly, Pomona (1971).

Aren't you the guy who I got a manual for a PRR-9/PRT-4 squad radio
from my reserver unit just before you graduated?

Seems to me you wanted to put it on 6M.

No, that wasn't me.

At the time, I was WB6EEP. I later morphed into WB6SSY and recently
upgraded to AE6KS. I was playing with Low Band, VHF, and UHF
commercial FM radios in college. I built a 6 meter FM repeater with
phone patch even before I went to Cal Poly so that I could make long
distance calls for cheap from the dorms.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/wb6eep-01.html
Yep... tubes. I was also involved in building several local ham
repeaters and worked part time at a local two-way shop.

A radio like the AN/PRT-4a would have been useful:
http://www.prc68.com/I/PRT4R9.shtml
http://www.kpjung.de/e_prr.htm
However, I don't recall ever seeing one around the skool, or in use by
any of the other hams. Mostly we preferred GE, Motorola, and RCA
commerical FM radios (in that order), which were available in
abundance as a result of the original FCC narrow banding ordeal
process.

Also, just before I was graduated(1), I was in a state of panic and in
danger of getting drafted. I had to quit all outside activities,
including part time employment and ham radio, and study sufficiently
hard in order to insure that I graduate. Failure would have meant
that I would probably get to use one of those squad radios, in Viet
Nam.


(1) The debate among the instructors was whether to fail my senior
project, thus requiring me to take another year of classes, or to get
rid of me by handing me my diploma with instructions go as far away as
possible. Fortunately, the latter group won.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:15:07 GMT, wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Bachelor O'Science, Electrical and Electronic Engineering.
Cal Poly, Pomona (1971).

Aren't you the guy who I got a manual for a PRR-9/PRT-4 squad radio
from my reserver unit just before you graduated?

Seems to me you wanted to put it on 6M.

No, that wasn't me.

At the time, I was WB6EEP. I later morphed into WB6SSY and recently
upgraded to AE6KS. I was playing with Low Band, VHF, and UHF
commercial FM radios in college. I built a 6 meter FM repeater with
phone patch even before I went to Cal Poly so that I could make long
distance calls for cheap from the dorms.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/wb6eep-01.html
Yep... tubes. I was also involved in building several local ham
repeaters and worked part time at a local two-way shop.

A radio like the AN/PRT-4a would have been useful:
http://www.prc68.com/I/PRT4R9.shtml
http://www.kpjung.de/e_prr.htm
However, I don't recall ever seeing one around the skool, or in use by
any of the other hams. Mostly we preferred GE, Motorola, and RCA
commerical FM radios (in that order), which were available in
abundance as a result of the original FCC narrow banding ordeal
process.

Also, just before I was graduated(1), I was in a state of panic and in
danger of getting drafted. I had to quit all outside activities,
including part time employment and ham radio, and study sufficiently
hard in order to insure that I graduate. Failure would have meant
that I would probably get to use one of those squad radios, in Viet
Nam.


(1) The debate among the instructors was whether to fail my senior
project, thus requiring me to take another year of classes, or to get
rid of me by handing me my diploma with instructions go as far away as
possible. Fortunately, the latter group won.

You sure you aren't just trying to get out of giving me the manual
back? :-)

Not sure after all these years why the manual was wanted, but I do
remember the Jeff I knew going to Thousand Oaks before I lost track
of him.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:00:01 GMT, wrote:

You sure you aren't just trying to get out of giving me the manual
back? :-)

Yes, I'm sure. I don't have too many military radio manuals. Plenty
of test equipment and commercial radio manuals, but no military. I'm
slowly scanning them to PDF and selling the cellulose on eBay.

Not sure after all these years why the manual was wanted, but I do
remember the Jeff I knew going to Thousand Oaks before I lost track
of him.

Not me. Somewhat after Cal Poly Pomona, I went to Israel for a short
while. When I returned, it was Smog Angeles - Capitola - Santa
Clara - East San Jose - and finally to Ben Lomond. The family
accountant had an office in Thousand Oaks, but I never lived there. I
don't recall any other Jeff at my college that was also a ham.
Sorry(tm).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
That's because you cannot have time
moving at different rates on both sides of an equality.

Black hole radiation is thought to balance the inequality.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com