Art wrote:
"Thus if we have a radiator of one WL that is tipped in space and near
zero resistance in impedance metric we will then attain a spherical
radiation pattern with Poynting`s vector and thus a demonsration of
point radiation together with further evidence that radiation is of
particle and not of waves."

No matter how Art`s words were combined, I don`t see in them any such
evidence. Even Art agrees that Maxwell`s equations correctly produce
answers to where the energy goes.

The 1955 edition of Terman`s "Electronic and Radio Engineering" shows
the radiation pattern of one WL of wire in Fig. 23-4 (b) on page 867. It
consists of four lobes each making an angle of 54 degrees with the axis
of the wire. The pattern deviates from a spherical pattern by a lot. So
much for "equilibrium"!

Cecil pointed out that in physics, electromagnetic radiation is treated
with duality, using either particle theory or waves, whichever is more
convenient for the problem at hand.

Maxwell solved the problems of radiation using wave equations which are
said to be four of the most influential equations in science.

On page 864 of Terman`s 1955 opus he writes:
"The laws governing such radiation are obtained by using Maxwell`s
equations to express the fields associated with the wire; when this is
done there is found to be a component, termed the radiated field, having
a strength that varies inversely with distance.

If Art would just absorb Terman`s chapter on "Antennas" I doubt he would
write such nonsense.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
Art wrote:
"Thus if we have a radiator of one WL that is tipped in space and near
zero resistance in impedance metric we will then attain a spherical
radiation pattern with Poynting`s vector and thus a demonsration of
point radiation together with further evidence that radiation is of
particle and not of waves."

No matter how Art`s words were combined, I don`t see in them any such
evidence. Even Art agrees that Maxwell`s equations correctly produce
answers to where the energy goes.

The 1955 edition of Terman`s "Electronic and Radio Engineering" shows
the radiation pattern of one WL of wire in Fig. 23-4 (b) on page 867. It
consists of four lobes each making an angle of 54 degrees with the axis
of the wire. The pattern deviates from a spherical pattern by a lot. So
much for "equilibrium"!

Cecil pointed out that in physics, electromagnetic radiation is treated
with duality, using either particle theory or waves, whichever is more
convenient for the problem at hand.

Maxwell solved the problems of radiation using wave equations which are
said to be four of the most influential equations in science.

"Heaviside said that mathematics was an experimental
science. He organised Maxwell's mathematical work into the four equations
which we now call "Maxwell's Equations".

Maxwell made model of solid etherWhat is Heaviside's model like?

On page 864 of Terman`s 1955 opus he writes:
"The laws governing such radiation are obtained by using Maxwell`s
equations to express the fields associated with the wire; when this is
done there is found to be a component, termed the radiated field, having
a strength that varies inversely with distance.

If Art would just absorb Terman`s chapter on "Antennas" I doubt he would
write such nonsense.
S*

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:24:27 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Art wrote:
"Thus if we have a radiator of one WL that is tipped in space and near
zero resistance in impedance metric we will then attain a spherical
radiation pattern with Poynting`s vector and thus a demonsration of
point radiation together with further evidence that radiation is of
particle and not of waves."

Hi Richard,

Lot of contradiction in the short space of one sentence, isn't there?

Tipped in space? Who but an astronaut know this? Is an antenna
tipped if he wasn't there? (The logical knot formerly known as "If a
tree falls in the forest, does it make waves or particles?")

A vector creates a sphere? A vector with no tail, and all head? Must
be a new science of mechanics there. If there is any lesson to be
learned from the past, then Newton has been discarded for heresy.

Where "radiation is ... not of waves" invalidates every patent
description Art has ever submitted - fortunately that doesn't have any
impact on the legality of their issue.

Let's see, where one of Art's patents teaches that reflectors are
shorter than the driven element, and the directors are longer, was
this due to the newly revealed particle theory? Art has steadfastly
refused to explain this novel design feature until - well certainly
not now (or ever?) and I will never see his mea culpa. Such an
admission would plunge the postings count into oblivion without that
full quota of nonsense.

What happened to his other patent's teaching of "length efficiency?"
Now that we have witnessed the dawn of the tilted equilibrated full
wave radiator (TEFWR), it would seem that "length efficiency" (which
formerly compressed the antenna by snipping off the ends that didn't
radiate) has been sent to the neighborhood Re-education Kamp.

As I stand on the corner waving goodbye to that bus, I fondly recall
how the logic stood that no current could be found on the tips of
radiators, thus trim them off to no loss of radiation. It took very
few decades before Art had then recognized that his new antenna's tips
had no more current than the full-length one, and he trimmed that one
once again! New and improved (as the saying goes). Another decade
passed into the new millennium and he observed that he could extend
this logic once again to the point where his last design encompassed a
160M full sized antenna in the space of two shoe boxes. The TRIUMPH
OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS.

Yes, I realize the irony in caps and terms chosen to illustrate this,
the Ritual Art of Antenna Bris. The careful reader may wish to count
the number of accumulated ironies, retorts, confutations, and quips;
and submit them on a sheet of paper inclosed with $2 in postage stamps
inside an envelope (send no coins), posted to me. Those who can show
the correlation between each and the appropriate patent number will be
awarded Mauve bonus points. Winners will be announced at a future
date. [Offer void where permitted by law.]

Cecil pointed out that in physics, electromagnetic radiation is treated
with duality, using either particle theory or waves, whichever is more
convenient for the problem at hand.

Well, there's the match for this pair of bookends. Cecil could have
as easily contributed with an inventory of his left pocket's contents.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

As I stand on the corner waving goodbye to that bus, I fondly recall
how the logic stood that no current could be found on the tips of
radiators, thus trim them off to no loss of radiation. It took very
few decades before Art had then recognized that his new antenna's tips
had no more current than the full-length one, and he trimmed that one
once again! New and improved (as the saying goes). Another decade
passed into the new millennium and he observed that he could extend
this logic once again to the point where his last design encompassed a
160M full sized antenna in the space of two shoe boxes. The TRIUMPH
OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS.

Is any simillarity between Art and Tesla?
Bill Miller wrote: "*But* Tesla's "antennas" were similar physically to the
well-known "Tesla
Coil." These antennas, in spite of their enormous size, were electrically
"small" when compared with a wavelength. They were essentially a metallic
ball that was fed from the secondary of a resonant transformer. But they
appear to have had fairly large effective bandwidths in spite of their
electrically small size,"
S*

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

As I stand on the corner waving goodbye to that bus, I fondly recall
how the logic stood that no current could be found on the tips of
radiators, thus trim them off to no loss of radiation. It took very
few decades before Art had then recognized that his new antenna's tips
had no more current than the full-length one, and he trimmed that one
once again! New and improved (as the saying goes). Another decade
passed into the new millennium and he observed that he could extend
this logic once again to the point where his last design encompassed a
160M full sized antenna in the space of two shoe boxes. The TRIUMPH
OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS.

Is any simillarity between Art and Tesla?
Bill Miller wrote: "*But* Tesla's "antennas" were similar physically to
the well-known "Tesla
Coil." These antennas, in spite of their enormous size, were electrically
"small" when compared with a wavelength. They were essentially a metallic
ball that was fed from the secondary of a resonant transformer. But they
appear to have had fairly large effective bandwidths in spite of their
electrically small size,"
S*


Tesla created HF transformers. He didn't design them as antennas but,
because of their significant length at the operating wavelength, they did
act that way to some extent. The metallic ball (often a torus nowadays) is
a means of terminating the secondary in a way that reduces spurious
discharges - its radius of curvature is large. His ideas to distribute
electrical power using Tesla coils were crazy and dangerous, but some argue
he was the inspiration for AC distribution at much lower voltages, which is
a good thing.

There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that 'Art
Unwin' character. Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. 'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

On Sep 15, 7:06*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...





"Richard Clark" wrote
.. .

As I stand on the corner waving goodbye to that bus, I fondly recall
how the logic stood that no current could be found on the tips of
radiators, thus trim them off to no loss of radiation. *It took very
few decades before Art had then recognized that his new antenna's tips
had no more current than the full-length one, and he trimmed that one
once again! *New and improved (as the saying goes). *Another decade
passed into the new millennium and he observed that he could extend
this logic once again to the point where his last design encompassed a
160M full sized antenna in the space of two shoe boxes. *The TRIUMPH
OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS.

Is any simillarity between Art and Tesla?
Bill Miller wrote: "*But* Tesla's "antennas" were similar physically to
the well-known "Tesla
Coil." These antennas, in spite of their enormous size, were electrically
"small" when compared with a wavelength. They were essentially a metallic
ball that was fed from the secondary of a resonant transformer. But they
appear to have had fairly large effective bandwidths in spite of their
electrically small size,"
S*

Tesla created HF transformers. *He didn't design them as antennas but,
because of their significant length at the operating wavelength, they did
act that way to some extent. *The metallic ball (often a torus nowadays) is
a means of terminating the secondary in a way that reduces spurious
discharges - its radius of curvature is large. *His ideas to distribute
electrical power using Tesla coils were crazy and dangerous, but some argue
he was the inspiration for AC distribution at much lower voltages, which is
a good thing.

There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that 'Art
Unwin' character. *Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. *'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. *You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chr

On Sep 15, 7:06*pm, "christofire" wrote:


There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that 'Art
Unwin' character. *Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. *'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. *You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

Hi Chris
The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal? or to state it another way,
How is it illegal to change a static field into a dynamic field?
can you, will you answer the question or are you just sitting on
Richards shirt tail.

Jaro

"jaroslav lipka" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 7:06 pm, "christofire" wrote:


There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that
'Art
Unwin' character. Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. 'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his
own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

Hi Chris
The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal? or to state it another way,
How is it illegal to change a static field into a dynamic field?
can you, will you answer the question or are you just sitting on
Richards shirt tail.

Jaro


I certainly haven't arrived here by sitting on anyone's shirt tails. If
you'd care to read some of the history of this NG you'd see where I come
from.

Your question is not put clearly, although I have seen garbled sentences
like this before in this Usenet group. My first question is: have you
bothered to read any of the respected books on the subject, such as
'Electromagnetics with applications' by Krauss and Fleisch. I suspect if
you had you wouldn't be asking me such a question - it makes no sense! Do I
take it you are referring to Gauss's law for electric fields? Are you aware
that there is a counterpart Gauss's law for magnetic fields? I don't
believe there is such a thing as a single 'Gaussian law of statics' -
someone has made that up!

Gauss's law for electric fields states: the integral of the electric flux
density over a closed surface equals the charge enclosed. This is an
important part of the basis of electrostatics, that is the study of
electrical phenomena caused by static charges, but it applicable at a point
in time to any scenario that involves an enclosed charge - which means any
electrical conductor, whether it carries a non-moving charge, DC or AC.
Gauss's law for magnetic fields states: the integral of the magnetic flux
density over a closed surface is equal to zero, and this is an important
part of the basis of magnetics, again whether static or changing.

Both of Gauss's laws are embodied in Maxwell's equations and for the normal
RF case of sinusoidally-alternating variables a number of different
notations can be used, a popular one being phasor notation. As you will
know, phasors are vectors that rotate at the same angular frequency but have
arbitrary phase relationships and amplitudes - so phasor notation is a
compact way of expressing quite a lot. But, in this case, every one of the
phasors involved, D the displacement current density, rho the enclosed
charge, and B the magnetic flux density, is a variable that alternates with
the passage of time. 'Dynamic' variables if you want to call them that.

Neither of Gauss's laws applies directly to strength of an electric or
magnetic field but the linkage is the other two of Maxwell's equations based
on Ampere's law and Faraday's law, which are both applicable to time-varying
fields - 'dynamic fields' if you must.

So ... would you like to put your question more clearly? What do you
actually mean by 'to change a static field into a dynamic field' in respect
of antennas, where all the electrical and magnetic variables are changing
with time, especially the fields? Is this the result of a misunderstanding
of the meaning of the word 'electrostatic' - used to differentiate between
those phenomena caused by the presence of contained charge and those caused
by its movement?

Chris

On Sep 15, 8:15*am, "christofire" wrote:
"jaroslav lipka" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 7:06 pm, "christofire" wrote:



There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that
'Art
Unwin' character. Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. 'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his
own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

* Hi Chris
* * * * * * * *The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal? *or to state it another way,
* * *How is it illegal to change a static field into a dynamic field?
can you, will you answer the question or are you just sitting on
Richards shirt tail.

*Jaro

I certainly haven't arrived here by sitting on anyone's shirt tails. *If
you'd care to read some of the history of this NG you'd see where I come
from.

Your question is not put clearly, although I have seen garbled sentences
like this before in this Usenet group. *My first question is: have you
bothered to read any of the respected books on the subject, such as
'Electromagnetics with applications' by Krauss and Fleisch. *I suspect if
you had you wouldn't be asking me such a question - it makes no sense! *Do I
take it you are referring to Gauss's law for electric fields? *Are you aware
that there is a counterpart Gauss's law for magnetic fields? *I don't
believe there is such a thing as a single 'Gaussian law of statics' -
someone has made that up!

Gauss's law for electric fields states: the integral of the electric flux
density over a closed surface equals the charge enclosed. *This is an
important part of the basis of electrostatics, that is the study of
electrical phenomena caused by static charges, but it applicable at a point
in time to any scenario that involves an enclosed charge - which means any
electrical conductor, whether it carries a non-moving charge, DC or AC.
Gauss's law for magnetic fields states: the integral of the magnetic flux
density over a closed surface is equal to zero, and this is an important
part of the basis of magnetics, again whether static or changing.

Both of Gauss's laws are embodied in Maxwell's equations and for the normal
RF case of sinusoidally-alternating variables a number of different
notations can be used, a popular one being phasor notation. *As you will
know, phasors are vectors that rotate at the same angular frequency but have
arbitrary phase relationships and amplitudes - so phasor notation is a
compact way of expressing quite a lot. *But, in this case, every one of the
phasors involved, D the displacement current density, rho the enclosed
charge, and B the magnetic flux density, is a variable that alternates with
the passage of time. *'Dynamic' variables if you want to call them that..

Neither of Gauss's laws applies directly to strength of an electric or
magnetic field but the linkage is the other two of Maxwell's equations based
on Ampere's law and Faraday's law, which are both applicable to time-varying
fields - 'dynamic fields' if you must.

So ... would you like to put your question more clearly? *What do you
actually mean by 'to change a static field into a dynamic field' in respect
of antennas, where all the electrical and magnetic variables are changing
with time, especially the fields? *Is this the result of a misunderstanding
of the meaning of the word 'electrostatic' - used to differentiate between
those phenomena caused by the presence of contained charge and those caused
by its movement?

Chris


Gauss's law of statics is enclosed particles in equilibrium. Add a
time varying field to same it becomes a dynamic field in equilibrium
and thus equates with Maxwell's laws.

On Sep 15, 8:15*am, jaroslav lipka wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:06*pm, "christofire" wrote:



There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that 'Art
Unwin' character. *Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. *'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. *You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

* Hi Chris
* * * * * * * *The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal? *or to state it another way,
* * *How is it illegal to change a static field into a dynamic field?
can you, will you answer the question or are you just sitting on
Richards shirt tail.

*Jaro

Applying time to a static field doesn't make a static field a dynamic
field.

Jimmie