"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.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 8:15 am, "christofire" wrote:
"jaroslav lipka" wrote in message

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

- - snip - -

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


(written by Unwin)
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.


(written by Chris)
This appears to be paraphysical nonsense, once again.

(a) There are no 'Maxwell's laws' - there are the four Maxwell's equations
based on laws ascribed to the other three authors named above. The term
'eqilibrium' does not feature in, and is not required in, Maxwell's
equations or the laws it is based upon. Radio communication has been based
on Maxwell's equations for more than 100 years without need for
modification.

(b) There is no single 'Gauss's law of statics' as I explained above, and
both of Gauss's laws can be applied to time varying quantities but neither
contains a field.

(c) Both of Gauss's laws are included in Maxwell's equations without
modification - there is no need to 'Add a time varying field to same' - it
is there already in each case.
Once again: Gauss's laws are already applicable to time varying
quantities.

(d) What Maxwell provided was unification of the presentation of the four
equations in differential, integral or phasor form, so the relationships and
linkage between them became clear and they could all be used together to
solve electromagnetic problems.

I think the group is aware by now what I think of the writings of people who
claim to know better than Kraus, Jordan & Balmain, Jasik, et al, on the
basis of no practical evidence.

Chris

On Sep 15, 10:24*am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 8:15 am, "christofire" wrote:

"jaroslav lipka" wrote in message

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

- - snip - -



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

(written by Unwin)
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.

(written by Chris)
This appears to be paraphysical nonsense, once again.

(a) There are no 'Maxwell's laws' - there are the four Maxwell's equations
based on laws ascribed to the other three authors named above. *The term
'eqilibrium' does not feature in, and is not required in, Maxwell's
equations or the laws it is based upon. *Radio communication has been based
on Maxwell's equations for more than 100 years without need for
modification.

(b) There is no single 'Gauss's law of statics' as I explained above, and
both of Gauss's laws can be applied to time varying quantities but neither
contains a field.

(c) Both of Gauss's laws are included in Maxwell's equations without
modification - there is no need to 'Add a time varying field *to same' - it
is there already in each case.
* * * * Once again: Gauss's laws are already applicable to time varying
quantities.

(d) What Maxwell provided was unification of the presentation of the four
equations in differential, integral or phasor form, so the relationships and
linkage between them became clear and they could all be used together to
solve electromagnetic problems.

I think the group is aware by now what I think of the writings of people who
claim to know better than Kraus, Jordan & Balmain, Jasik, et al, on the
basis of no practical evidence.

Chris

You still did not put a stake in the ground, just walked around the
question and then walked away. One more chance before I place you in
"unsure". Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?
What is your call sign or do you prefer to remain as a unknown?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 10:24 am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message


- - snip - -



You still did not put a stake in the ground, just walked around the
question and then walked away. One more chance before I place you in
"unsure". Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?
What is your call sign or do you prefer to remain as a unknown?


Incorrect; I gave a positive answer to the question. My answer was based on
normal physics and identified what must, therefore, be paraphysical or
nonsense (or both). The equations don't make any reference to particles -
as I'm sure you are aware. As to the views of Maxwell, the person, I
daresay you can make them up to your heart's content without provable
challenge.

I don't much care what category you place me in - you already know how I
categorise people who make up their own versions of physics and expect other
to believe them ... and sadly some appear to!

My call sign, if I have one, is none of your business.

Chris

On Sep 15, 10:58*am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 10:24 am, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

You still did not put a stake in the ground, just walked around the
question and then walked away. One more chance before I place you in
"unsure". Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?
What is your call sign or do you prefer to remain as a unknown?

Incorrect; I gave a positive answer to the question. *My answer was based on
normal physics and identified what must, therefore, be paraphysical or
nonsense (or both). *The equations don't make any reference to particles -
as I'm sure you are aware. *As to the views of Maxwell, the person, I
daresay you can make them up to your heart's content without provable
challenge.

I don't much care what category you place me in - you already know how I
categorise people who make up their own versions of physics and expect other
to believe them ... and sadly some appear to!

My call sign, if I have one, is none of your business.

Chris

O.k. So the thread as posted in the title is now closed. On the
question on the Gauss extension this is not understood so that is also
now closed. Insults? Well they can go on for ever as this is the main
attraction for its members.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 10:58 am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 10:24 am, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

You still did not put a stake in the ground, just walked around the
question and then walked away. One more chance before I place you in
"unsure". Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?
What is your call sign or do you prefer to remain as a unknown?

Incorrect; I gave a positive answer to the question. My answer was based
on
normal physics and identified what must, therefore, be paraphysical or
nonsense (or both). The equations don't make any reference to particles -
as I'm sure you are aware. As to the views of Maxwell, the person, I
daresay you can make them up to your heart's content without provable
challenge.

I don't much care what category you place me in - you already know how I
categorise people who make up their own versions of physics and expect
other
to believe them ... and sadly some appear to!

My call sign, if I have one, is none of your business.

Chris

O.k. So the thread as posted in the title is now closed. On the
question on the Gauss extension this is not understood so that is also
now closed. Insults? Well they can go on for ever as this is the main
attraction for its members.


What do you think gives you the power or the right to close a thread - is
this something written in the Usenet 'code of practice'? Surely, in
practice it will continue until all aspects of discussion have reached their
conclusions and more interesting threads have appeared.

Do yourself a favour Art, visit a technical library, read and try to
understand the real physics on which radio communication has been based. If
you have problems with any of the parts that are well documented then there
will be plenty of folk here who will be willing and able to illuminate,
including some with less time on their hands than myself who don't post very
often but have extensive knowledge. I think you will find it fascinating
how intelligence can be passed between two points in space without any need
for the passage of matter between them - all puns accepted!

Chris

Art Unwin wrote:
Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?

Linear math fails at the nonlinear point. There are
lots of examples. This is just one of them.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com