On Nov 15, 3:44*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Nov 15, 1:23*am, Art Unwin wrote:



Cebic found when comparing different style programs that some behaved
well in certain circumstance where others did not. Yet all antenna
programs
are based on the use of Maxwells equations where all programs should
have the same results, after all Maxwells equations are exact and not
fudged. One of the reasons is that since Maxwells laws are exact
radiators used must be resonant at repeatable points designated as a
period.
* *Fact is that most users use fractional wavelength designs, usually
a half wavelength, that is not resonant at repeatable points where
the area around the datum line of a sine wave is never equal when
generated around a tank circuit.
* * The reason for this is "voltage over shoot" which gets smaller
with every cycle but never disappears. Thus when programs are used
based on fractional wavelength radiators the results will never show
100% accountability and in fact efficiencies derived will be in the
order of 92%!
* If the radiator is of a wavelength then one is not using a "fudge"
figure
in the calculations and *then becomes possible to attain total
accountability with efficiency of 100%. regardles of what type program
is used.
* *If one is to use exact equations, as are Maxwell equations, then
one must also use measurements that are also exact and repeatable and
that is definitely not fractional wavelengths!
*What one gains from this aproach is that any radiator of any shape,
*size or elevation can provide figures in the order of 100% as long as
the radiator is a multiple of a wavelength where it is *resonant at
exact and repeatable measurements.
If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

How about giving some pointers as to where you got this BS. Sounds
like you just made a bunch of stuff up.

Jimmie

No Jim. Ideas with what is presented to me in science, where such can
be obtained from first principles and with agreement with known LAWS
of science rather than various theories. In this case the aproach of
Gauss provided a mathematical connection to Maxwells equations which
by the use of antenna programs based on Maxwell only provide
accountability of all forces. This is easily proven when use of a
program that is optimized to account for all forces involved in
radiation such that the solution provided is termed 100% efficient as
opposed to planar or other designs that cannot achieve 100% efficiency
because of the non accountability of the recognition of "over shoot".
One always looks for 100% accountability of all forces such that 100%
efficiency is achieved.
If you are in the early stages of education it would be folly to bring
forth suggestions to the contrary of those presented in the books and
your professor since these are the standards against which determines
whether you graduate or not. Obviously this is not the time to debate
differences. As life proceedes one becomes comfortable with alignment
with ideas and teachings that conform with those around you because in
general your wages depend on it. Thus you are dealing with faith
regardless of the attainment via first principles that produce
conflict.
So yes, your only response to continue a science debate is to provide
counter proof from first principles that is available some where in a
book! Compared to that task it is so much more convenient to exit the
debate on a statement that does not require a proof. Thus anger comes
to the fore and debate or a thread comes to an end.
Cheers
Art