On May 23, 4:38*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 23, 4:34 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 22, 6:07 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably
trying
to do the new.
The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis
the
teachers adopt to teaching.
S*
antennas do not have to be grounded.
"A wire that runs from the motor to the machine's frame to absorb stray
electric charge. Chassis ground is used when it is not possible to connect a
grounding conductor into the earth. "

" how are antennas on satellites
grounded??

To chassis. Your mobile phone also.

*do satellites become massive positive charges in space as
they keep shooting off electrons...

They mainly transmit. So chassis is enough. Chassis must has the large area
to dissipate/absorb the electrons from space.

again, this is going no where,
when you have read another hundred years of science and are ready to
believe what has been well proven over that time period maybe we can
have a conversation.

Take a glance at:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
And tell us what is your opinion on Maxwell's model of the aether..

S*

Hi Mister S
Thank you for supplying reference for the article in the phylisophical
journal. Most of it is beyond my interlect

So much so that neither of you noticed that the article is scanned and
ocr'ed from somewhere resulting in none of the equations being
faithfully represented. For most I would expect this to result in
difficulty understanding the principles presented.



but a quick review show that the tenents of his explanation
are based first on the requirement of equilibrium
That particles is the center of discussion
That vortices are present to provide a displacement force
And the connection between electrostatic and light
*functions. Nowhere do I see reference to Gauss law of statics and the
progression to a dynamic field which makes
his paper some what astounding for him to come up with this paper
without these clues that have been hidden for so long. I intend to get
a print out of all four portions of this paper in the hope I can
cherry pick some portions that I can understand from the paper. As
always one of the most important things are the responses from his
peers which
usually are accompanied by science analysis rather than relyinging on
base intuitions without supporting facts from the ham community.
Thanks again
Art

Art, is there any chance your high observed gain is because antenna has
very low impedance that the currents may be overly elevated from the
voltage source used in your model?

Low impedance leading to higher current leading to higher fields being
generated leading to higher perceived gain.

Certainly if you consider I sq R and the removal of losses made by
penetrations into the metal . But there are other considerations such
as the swamping of diamagnetic action in air after near removal from
the metal itself because the change in eddies strength changes every
thing.
I cannot explain the mechanics of what is actually happening and can
only be guided by what the programs infer. Intimate discussion of the
above is more than welcome. Especially the realization of maximum
radiation determined by the time needed for the replacement of the
ejected particle which probably occurrs before minimum impedance is
reached. I cannot imagine the addition of zero or negative values in
the equation since only the contents of the boundary is relevent in
accountability for all forces as I see it based on
Newtons laws. Joe your comment are the first review that is willing to
discuss the merits of my work and I sure welcome it so that closure
can be reached



If you can choose antenna parameters that result in negative resistance,
does this really mean your model is working properly under the
conditions you are using?