"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 21, 12:23 pm, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"tom"
news:4ab41e80$0$42842$8046368 ...

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

God forbid that you should actually do some research! What a terrible
thought!

All necessary resarch are done by radio people. You all know how antennas
work. Monopole and dipole means the electric pole because no magnetic
poles.
You only do not realize that EM waves can start from the ELECRIC field.
The
electric field is radiated from the ends where is high voltage and no
current.
S*

S*
These guys are not helping you! What they are doing is using you for
cannon fodder.
Try looking at things my way. You know that when a time varying
current is applied to a radiator that it also supports a reacting
current with spin, known as as an Eddy current
You also know that the current applied produces a electrical field and
a magnetic field that interchange energy between each other in the
form of a tank circuit.
Now look at the sequence of actions.We do know that the Eddy current
produces a lifting force and a spin force and we also know that there
is a electro static field surrounding the radiator. First we must
recognise that particles encapsulate the whole radiator but can be
individually lifted from the radiator with spin applied a short
distance. At this point it enters the electrostatic field around the
radiator where at the same time the generated magnetic field is
intersecting the electrostatic field. The moment that the lifted
particle enters the electro static field mix it is subjected to a
accelarating force exactly the same way as a electron in a CRT is
impacted upon. If you refer to the actions within a electron tube you
will note that the electrostatic field offsets the direction of the
accellerated particle into an exiting parabolic direction. The
combined fields will only accelerate the particle while it is within
the electrostatic field proper, after which it has a straight line
projection with spin. The time that it is within the electrostatic
field is the total accelerating time ie Newtons law 1/2 ft sqd.
The acceleration imparted to the particle happens to be the speed of
light which implies that this particle is able to emit light. If you
have difficulty then read up on the CRT.
As a point of interest the Eddy current itself must be balanced by an
equal and opposite force per Newton and if we look at it in boundary
terms we see that the opposing force is the combination of Gravity and
the rotation of the Earth. What this shows is that the particle has
spin and accelleration where the vector associated with Gravity is now
neutralized such that it retains its straight line action with spin
as it traverses the boundaries of the Earth Another thing of
importance is that Newtons laws are based on the condition of mass
where the particle becomes an excellent fit as opposed to a field or a
wave.
Back to the radiator itself. If it is a full wave length then it is a
closed circuit of the tank circuit form. If a radiator is less than a
wave length then yes, charges will form at the end of a radiator but
is hampered from further movement by the opposing impedance of the
environment. The charges will still leak but with out a spinning
action it will remain in the near field. Ofcourse changing the
environment will give an instantaneus charge in a spark form because
as an open circuit it always searches for the closed circuit function.
Regards
Art


That's hilarious!

We're not using Mr. Bialek as 'cannon fodder' - he is presenting himself as
cannon fodder voluntarily and he has the power to stop this happening. The
same applies to you. But the concept of him looking at things your way is
akin to a nun on a clowns head.

Eddy currents are not named after someone called Eddy and the speed of light
is a speed so it cannot be an amount of acceleration. Any takers for the
other faux pas?

Chris

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:19:22 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:


"Art Unwin" wrote in message
the Eddy current itself must be balanced by an
equal and opposite force

Eddy currents are not named after someone called Eddy and the speed of light
is a speed so it cannot be an amount of acceleration. Any takers for the
other faux pas?

I can imagine an Uncle Eddy, but for equal and opposite - Auntie Eddy?

If an eddy circulates in one direction (maintaining the hydrological
metaphor of Stefan's) Auntie Eddy must run opposite. So now the Art
of Antenna Bris finds itself in a backwash.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sep 21, 4:19*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 12:23 pm, Szczepan Bialek wrote:



"tom"
news:4ab41e80$0$42842$8046368 ...

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

God forbid that you should actually do some research! What a terrible
thought!

All necessary resarch are done by radio people. You all know how antennas
work. Monopole and dipole means the electric pole because no magnetic
poles.
You only do not realize that EM waves can start from the ELECRIC field.
The
electric field is radiated from the ends where is high voltage and no
current.
S*

S*
These guys are not helping you! What they are doing is using you for
cannon fodder.
Try looking at things my way. You know that when a time varying
current is applied to a radiator that it also supports a reacting
current with spin, known as as an Eddy current
You also know that the current applied produces a electrical field and
a magnetic field that interchange energy between each other in the
form of a tank circuit.
Now look at the sequence of actions.We do know that the Eddy current
produces a lifting force and a spin force and we also know that there
is a electro static field surrounding the radiator. First we must
recognise that particles encapsulate the whole radiator but can be
individually lifted from the radiator with spin applied a short
distance. At this point it enters the electrostatic field around the
radiator where at the same time the generated magnetic field is
intersecting the electrostatic field. The moment that the lifted
particle enters the electro static field mix it is subjected to a
accelarating force exactly the same way as a electron in a CRT is
impacted upon. If you refer to the actions within a electron tube you
will note that the electrostatic field offsets the direction of the
accellerated particle into an exiting parabolic direction. The
combined fields will only accelerate the particle while it is within
the electrostatic field proper, after which it has a straight line
projection with spin. The time that it is within the electrostatic
field is the total accelerating time ie Newtons law 1/2 ft sqd.
The acceleration imparted to the particle happens to be the speed of
light which implies that this particle is able to emit light. If you
have difficulty then read up on the CRT.
As a point of interest the Eddy current itself must be balanced by an
equal and opposite force per Newton and if we look at it in boundary
terms we see that the opposing force is the combination of Gravity and
the rotation of the Earth. What this shows is that the particle has
spin and accelleration where the vector associated with Gravity is now
neutralized such that it retains its straight line action with spin
as it traverses the boundaries of the Earth Another thing of
importance is that Newtons laws are based on the condition of mass
where the particle becomes an excellent fit as opposed to a field or a
wave.
*Back to the radiator itself. If it is a full wave length then it is a
closed circuit of the tank circuit form. If a radiator is less than a
wave length then yes, charges will form at the end of a radiator but
is hampered from further movement by the opposing impedance of the
environment. The charges will still leak but with out a spinning
action it will remain in the near field. Ofcourse changing the
environment will give an instantaneus charge in a spark form because
as an open circuit it always searches for the closed circuit function.
Regards
Art

That's hilarious!

We're not using Mr. Bialek as 'cannon fodder' - he is presenting himself as
cannon fodder voluntarily and he has the power to stop this happening. *The
same applies to you. *But the concept of him looking at things your way is
akin to a nun on a clowns head.

Eddy currents are not named after someone called Eddy and the speed of light
is a speed so it cannot be an amount of acceleration. *Any takers for the
other faux pas?

Chris

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.


* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on, by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. Kraus, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris

On Sep 21, 7:33*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from *the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on, by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. *The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. *The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. *The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. *The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. *Krauss, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris

No it does not appear in Kraus book. He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium. To do that you must think in terms of
wavelength. After all with respect to science all revolve around
boundary laws of the Universe and you blindly ignore that fact.
Now back to radiation which applies spin to a p. Nowarticle where as
with a crt no spin is applied as it is heat that separates the resting
particle Now earlier you refered to a electrostatic field that
according to what you stated did not have a border and surely you know
that just can't be unless it is in equilibrium which requires a closed
circuit.
For this to come to fruition you go back to the boundary laws where
the arbitrary border is one that is closed i.e. in equilibrium. Now
cast your mind back to the Gauss extension where radiators and
particles lie in a closed static field. Now you should see that
equilibrium must reign for a closed static field. Now you blithely
mentioned an electrostatic field with nary a mention as to how it is
formed and how it fits into the whole picture.
Why? Because the books do not provide an unbroken trail that fully
describes radiation
( books admit that) as I have done where everything dove tails into
the existing laws of the Universe. And then I gave you a bonus with
respect to the weak field that Einstein searched for in vain. Einstein
looked at the package presented by the Big Bag but omitted to keep
that which it was wrapped into. That was the arbitrary boundary around
which were forces or vectors that were equal and opposite when a
smallest of smallest of particles edged out towards the border. Yes it
was of a weak force but for all of that it broke the equilibrium
boundary as the forces at that point was not now equal. The breakage
was one where the opposing forces were offset to each other thus
providing a torque force that provided spin. Now we come to our own
Earth encased in a arbitrary border and outside the border we have the
same conditions of equilibrium that must equal the forces of the Big
Bang which means the outside has two vectors, gravity vector which is
straight and a vector denoting spin i.e. rotation of the Earth. On the
other side of the border you again have two vectors a straight vector
and that curly one you don't like me to call eddy current.
Yup. Everything falls together nicely thank you, when you study
radiation from first principles instead of binding yourself to books
that readily admit to not understanding the radiation process. Now
this is not being arrogant when one has applied all principles but I
do think it is arrogant of you and others to asasinate the character
of "S" purely because of his english and spelling and not to help one
that wants to learn.
Just think about it all. I have shown how a particle moves in space in
a straight line trajectory such that the particle maintains a straight
line without the parabolic force of gravity driving it down to the
Earth. Go back to your books and show just how the electrostatic field
came about and what was the borders that it was contained in
Art
via applied spin and where gravity

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 21, 7:33 pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on,
by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with
a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on
the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through
it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying
to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is
composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the
charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. Krauss, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid
name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write
especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris

No it does not appear in Kraus book.

* That is incorrect, and I expect you know that to be the case. All of what
I wrote above can be traced to sources such as Kraus, Jordan and Balmain,
and Jasik; books you may never have tried to read and understand (on the
basis of your comment).


He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in trems of normal physics and cite a reference.


To do that you must think in terms of
wavelength. After all with respect to science all revolve around
boundary laws of the Universe and you blindly ignore that fact.

* How is there a boundary to the universe? It is unbounded - the universe
is known to be expanding into empty space.


Now back to radiation which applies spin to a p.

* No it doesn't - cite a reference.


Nowarticle where as
with a crt no spin is applied as it is heat that separates the resting
particle

* ... separates it from what?


Now earlier you refered to a electrostatic field that
according to what you stated did not have a border and surely you know
that just can't be unless it is in equilibrium which requires a closed
circuit.

* Fields in unbounded space tend to be unbounded. The fields around a
dipole are bounded by the surface of the dipole, which is the boundary
condition used by NEC, and usually in practice by the earth.


For this to come to fruition you go back to the boundary laws where
the arbitrary border is one that is closed i.e. in equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in terms of normal physics and cite a reference.


Now
cast your mind back to the Gauss extension where radiators and
particles lie in a closed static field. Now you should see that
equilibrium must reign for a closed static field. Now you blithely
mentioned an electrostatic field with nary a mention as to how it is
formed and how it fits into the whole picture.

* Recent discussion has been about the electric field produced by the
voltage that appears between the ends of a dipole - that's what I was
writing about, and so were you. How can you state 'with nary a mention as
to how it is formed'?


Why? Because the books do not provide an unbroken trail that fully
describes radiation
( books admit that) as I have done where everything dove tails into
the existing laws of the Universe.

* Kraus provides a trail that's as unbroken as can be comprehended by most
engineers. Physicists may wish to take it further but there's no evidence
of physicists in this newsgroup.


And then I gave you a bonus with
respect to the weak field that Einstein searched for in vain. Einstein
looked at the package presented by the Big Bag but omitted to keep
that which it was wrapped into.

* Is the universe enclosed in a Big Bag?


That was the arbitrary boundary around
which were forces or vectors that were equal and opposite when a
smallest of smallest of particles edged out towards the border. Yes it
was of a weak force but for all of that it broke the equilibrium
boundary as the forces at that point was not now equal. The breakage
was one where the opposing forces were offset to each other thus
providing a torque force that provided spin. Now we come to our own
Earth encased in a arbitrary border and outside the border we have the
same conditions of equilibrium that must equal the forces of the Big
Bang which means the outside has two vectors, gravity vector which is
straight and a vector denoting spin i.e. rotation of the Earth. On the
other side of the border you again have two vectors a straight vector
and that curly one you don't like me to call eddy current.

* Call it what you wish. Capitalising the word within a sentence, as you
did before, is usually reserved for phenomena named after the people who
discovered them - but that's an engineer thing.


Yup. Everything falls together nicely thank you, when you study
radiation from first principles instead of binding yourself to books
that readily admit to not understanding the radiation process.

* If you believe so fervently in your own version of all this then why don't
you submit it to peer review at sci.physics or sci.physics.research? It's
rather unfair to expose this only to an amateur radio newsgroup when what
you are doing is apparently re-writing physics in such a major way. Those
newsgroups would be more appropriate, considering the depth to which you are
going (i.e. well beyond amateur radio) - wouldn't you agree.


Now
this is not being arrogant when one has applied all principles

* My dictionary defines 'arrogant' as: 'having or showing an exaggerated
opinion of one's own importance , merit, ability, etc.' from the Latin
'arrogare': 'to claim as one's own'. Your re-writing of physics conforms to
this definition precisely.


but I
do think it is arrogant of you and others to asasinate the character
of "S" purely because of his english and spelling and not to help one
that wants to learn.

* He is showing no inclination of wanting to learn - he asks a question, and
then when answered responds with non-physical contradiction. His treatement
here is a direct consequence of that behaviour, like yours.


Just think about it all. I have shown how a particle moves in space in
a straight line trajectory such that the particle maintains a straight
line without the parabolic force of gravity driving it down to the
Earth. Go back to your books and show just how the electrostatic field
came about and what was the borders that it was contained in
Art
via applied spin and where gravity


* As I say, you should present your theory to sci.physics and
sci.physics.research if you have any interest in checking whether it is
correct, and not limit its exposure to this group. Do let us know when you
have posted there.

Chris

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:51:44 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

Chris

Could you turn your newsreader's quoting mechanism back on? It is
very confusing to have to fumble with Art's babbling interleaved with
your "special" editorial marks.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:51:44 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

Chris

Could you turn your newsreader's quoting mechanism back on? It is
very confusing to have to fumble with Art's babbling interleaved with
your "special" editorial marks.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Richard,

It's not something I have control over using Outlook Express, and it has
been commented upon by others before. Whether OE maintains the ''s before
lines of quoted text seems to depend on something in the text I'm quoting.
I gather it is a known issue, and it's the reason why I sometimes use a '*'
before the first line of new paragraphs of my response. I have been told I
should ditch OE but I don't want to use webmail; I could use Agent but I
haven't so far.

Chris

On Sep 22, 6:51*am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 7:33 pm, "christofire" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on,
by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with
a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on
the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through
it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying
to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is
composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the
charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. Krauss, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid
name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write
especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris

No it does not appear in Kraus book.

* That is incorrect, and I expect you know that to be the case. *All of what
I wrote above can be traced to sources such as Kraus, Jordan and Balmain,
and Jasik; books you may never have tried to read and understand (on the
basis of your comment).

*He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in trems of normal physics and cite a reference.
Surprised you dont know that!
Easily done. Boundary laws are based on Newtons laws where every
action has an equal and opposite reaction. So a subject under
discussion is placed inside an arbitrary border
where the forces of the contents must be equal to the sum of the
forces outside the boundary. Where does Krauss deviate from from
Maxwells laws? well for one thing his radiator differed from a full
WL or period so immediately he has strayed. Another thing is by
straying from a full WL he was unable to contain the electrostatic
field within a border
such as a quad. And it goes on especially with regards to his windings
pitch theory.
Thus the contents of the arbitrary boundary is now in a state of
equilibrium. this is true whether a unit of time has been added or not
to the equation.





*To do that you must think in terms of
wavelength. After all with respect to science all revolve around
boundary laws of the Universe and you blindly ignore that fact.

* How is there a boundary to the universe? *It is unbounded - the universe
is known to be expanding into empty space.

Hogwash. Nobody knows the extent of the Universe boundary. Every day
discoveries are made beyond our Universe so we are nowhere near the
point we can ascertain what forces
are required to contain a boundary.
Again I am surprised you didn't know that!


Now back to radiation which applies spin to a p.

* No it doesn't - cite a reference.

Well look at how salvage yards sort out metals into different
enclosures.
They apply a displacement current to a conveyor where each piece of
metal is elevated with spin such that it lands in the appropriate
enclosure which is dependent on the resistivity of the metal elevated.
This method of elevating scrap for recovery has been used for years
and it is the same action that is applied to particles for radiation.
Why would you need a citation for a practice that is well known and in
use? On top of that a citation is only an instrument to poin out who
and where the statement was made. This has its use for those who
easily believe what they see in print and thus save them from effort.



*Nowarticle where as
with a crt no spin is applied as it is heat that separates the resting
particle

* ... separates it from what?

Now you are being silly. first the particle was resting. Then heat was
applied to its butt.
Now think about it. What fields are in place to take control of the
free particle that now has a increase in its potential energy?


*Now earlier you refered to a electrostatic field that
according to what you stated did not have a border and surely you know
that just can't be unless it is in equilibrium which requires a closed
circuit.

* Fields in unbounded space tend to be unbounded. *The fields around a
dipole are bounded by the surface of the dipole, which is the boundary
condition used by NEC, and usually in practice by the earth.

Tend, tend. You mean you don't know? NEC is per the laws of Maxwell.
Equilibrium is a must as is the encirclement of a electrostatic field
just like a quad or loop antenna. Since the programmer did not follow
Maxwell in its entirety and frankly did many modifications such that
it would solve planar radiators, who knows what license the
programmers took to get the job done where it could foolmost of the
people most of the time?




For this to come to fruition you go back to the boundary laws where
the arbitrary border is one that is closed i.e. in equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in terms of normal physics and cite a reference.
Hmm I thought I had done that before!



*Now
cast your mind back to the Gauss extension where radiators and
particles lie in a closed static field. Now you should see that
equilibrium must reign for a closed static field. Now you blithely
mentioned an electrostatic field with nary a mention as to how it is
formed and how it fits into the whole picture.

* Recent discussion has been about the electric field produced by the
voltage that appears between the ends of a dipole - that's what I was
writing about, and so were you. *How can you state 'with nary a mention as
to how it is formed'?

I have concentrated on radiator that were in equilibrium and of a
closed circuit called a tank circuit
.. You are mixing things up. I explained for somebody else what a
charge does for a radiator that is NOT in equilibrium because others
were unable to describe it adequately.


Why? Because the books do not provide an unbroken trail that fully
describes radiation
( books admit that) as I have done where everything dove tails into
the existing laws of the Universe.



* Kraus provides a trail that's as unbroken as can be comprehended by most
engineers. *Physicists may wish to take it further but there's no evidence
of physicists in this newsgroup.

No Krauss did no such thing. He expanded a yagi style radiator where
the elements ere made of loops. All he did was to connect them into a
continuous conductor. When experimenting with this he saw evidence
that field did not follow the axis of the windings
( rotation of the earth again) so he adjusted the pitch of the
windings to obtain a satisfactory pattern. He did not improve on the
existing knowledge of radiators as his radiators were not in
equilibrium and thus strayed from Maxwell.


*And then I gave you a bonus with
respect to the weak field that Einstein searched for in vain. Einstein
looked at the package presented by the Big Bag but omitted to keep
that which it was wrapped into.

* Is the universe enclosed in a Big Bag?

If you wish to put it into a three dimensional border be my guest. It
would be interesting to know what your starting point is bearing in
mind your position of a huge surrounding void.


*That was the arbitrary boundary around
which were forces or vectors that were equal and opposite when a
smallest of smallest of particles edged out towards the border. Yes it
was of a weak force but for all of that it broke the equilibrium
boundary as the forces at that point was not now equal. The breakage
was one where the opposing forces were offset to each other thus
providing a torque force that provided spin. Now we come to our own
Earth encased in a arbitrary border and outside the border we have the
same conditions of equilibrium that must equal the forces of the Big
Bang which means the outside has two vectors, gravity vector which is
straight and a vector denoting spin i.e. rotation of the Earth. On the
other side of the border you again have two vectors *a straight vector
and that curly one you don't like me to call eddy current.

* Call it what you wish. *Capitalising the word within a sentence, as you
did before, is usually reserved for phenomena named after the people who
discovered them - but that's an engineer thing.

Big deal


Yup. Everything falls together nicely thank you, when you study
radiation from first principles instead of binding yourself to books
that readily admit to not understanding the radiation process.

* If you believe so fervently in your own version of all this then why don't
you submit it to peer review at sci.physics or sci.physics.research? *It's
rather unfair to expose this only to an amateur radio newsgroup when what
you are doing is apparently re-writing physics in such a major way. *Those
newsgroups would be more appropriate, considering the depth to which you are
going (i.e. well beyond amateur radio) - wouldn't you agree.

Not really, espeilly if the groups has the same stature as this one.


*Now

this is not being arrogant when one has applied all principles

* My dictionary defines 'arrogant' as: 'having or showing an exaggerated
opinion of one's own importance , merit, ability, etc.' from the Latin
'arrogare': 'to claim as one's own'. *Your re-writing of physics conforms to
this definition precisely.

So it is arrogant to do things for your self from first principles to
confirm whether printed matter is correct or not? Why would anybody
broaden the outlook of others work without determining that its
foundations was of rock or sand? Trust but verify seems very apt here.



*but I
do think it is arrogant of you and others to asasinate the character
of "S" purely because of his english and spelling and not to help one
that wants to learn.

* He is showing no inclination of wanting to learn - he asks a question, and
then when answered responds with non-physical contradiction. *His treatement
here is a direct consequence of that behaviour, like yours.

Could be but he is not alone. He is surrounded by pseudo experts in
all fields who can prove nothing for themselves and relying on the
printed matter of others. Might just as well close the doors of a
library for a year to determine which book came out on top. Why on
earth would somebody turn him away from hydrolics when it like
electric current has laminar flow



Just think about it all. I have shown how a particle moves in space in
a straight line trajectory such that the particle maintains a straight
line without the parabolic force of gravity driving it down to the
Earth. Go back to your books and show just how the electrostatic field
came about and what was the borders that it was contained in
Art
via applied spin and where gravity

* As I say, you should present your theory to sci.physics and
sci.physics.research if you have any interest in checking whether it is
correct, and not limit its exposure to this group. *Do let us know when you
have posted there.

No, that is not the choice I have made. I decided to merge a paper
aproach with that of a patent request . You have read one patent
request and you have to wait for the PTO to print out the concluding
application. I am sharing it with industry and not the boneheads
who bunch themselves into secret rooms away from those outside who
cannot possibly provide anything of interest. They have the common
interest that if it doesn't come from them..........!!!!!! Pretty much
the same as this group. We shall see
Art




Chris

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:24:17 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:


Well look at how salvage yards sort out metals into different
enclosures.
They apply a displacement current to a conveyor where each piece of
metal is elevated with spin such that it lands in the appropriate
enclosure which is dependent on the resistivity of the metal elevated.
This isn't exactly how such systems work. Abstractly the system is a
metal detector and a sorting table hanging off a CAN. A controller at
the other end of the CAN 'reads' the discriminator and 'writes' to the
sorter. The writes open and close ejector nozzles. These are the magic
devices that cause the material to 'elevate with spin'.

This method of elevating scrap for recovery has been used for years
and it is the same action that is applied to particles for radiation.
Why would you need a citation for a practice that is well known and in
use?
Because you might be wishing your agenda into how you propose things
work. Who'da thunk that!