On Nov 1, 10:21*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Before this thread gets out of line again let me make clear a couple
of points that some have got hold of which has led them astray.
First it is well known that Gauss was a part of the equations of
maxwell with his contribution on magnetics
I focussed on Gauss's contribution via statics using the boundary
rules. It can be seen that applying a time varying current to a
gaussian field is exactly the same as Maxwells first equation! Yes you
have to convert from cgs units to show this but it clearly places
particles as the root of radiation.
The second point that some planted themselves on was that all
elements were resonant and therefore all should be fed. The real point
here is that all being resonant
showed the presence of equilibrium which is a must in all equations.
It also showed that with a minimum of two elements all radiation is
accounted for where-as with the yagi which is not in equilibrium has
losses because the last element added fails to recover remaining
available radiation. This is not about getting a better antenna than a
yagi since the latter utelizes available radiation with less waste
than others. The patent is really about obtaining knowledge that fits
the bill of Maxwell's first equation and points to the static particle
accelerated
into a charge by a time varying current. It also brings into question
that put forward by the London brothers regarding cooper pairs as well
as the relationship of a proton. It also makes clear that the double
slot experiment
is correct in stating that particles and waves have similar
properties but makes very clear that the subject at hand
is very much a particle. Thus the bottom line is that Gauss provided
direction with respect to the static aproach AS WELL as the more well
known magnetic connection. It is also important to state again the
importance of maintaining equilibrium when persuing the laws of
Maxwell. I would also like to add my assertion
of just two vectors as the sole constituents of the standard model
that Einstein earlier suspected.
At the same time Maxwells law has not been fully satisfied as it has
not removed the intrinsic resistance of the radiators because of the
presence of skin effect and thus the magnetic field which has no
contribution to the accountability of all forces. However it is
important to note
that in superconductors removal of the magnetic field
achieves the desired action as would a Meander style radiator where in
the absence of skin depth the current
would rise to the surface thus eliminating resistance losses incurred
by the radiator, which now can add to the desired maximum radiation
efficiency by tackling the
radiation resistance, that is the only resistance left.
Thanks for your time
Regards
Art.

On 11/2/2010 3:06 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:21 pm, Art wrote:
Before this thread gets out of line again let me make clear a couple
of points that some have got hold of which has led them astray.
First it is well known that Gauss was a part of the equations of
maxwell with his contribution on magnetics
I focussed on Gauss's contribution via statics using the boundary
rules. It can be seen that applying a time varying current to a
gaussian field is exactly the same as Maxwells first equation! Yes you
have to convert from cgs units to show this but it clearly places
particles as the root of radiation.
The second point that some planted themselves on was that all
elements were resonant and therefore all should be fed. The real point
here is that all being resonant
showed the presence of equilibrium which is a must in all equations.
It also showed that with a minimum of two elements all radiation is
accounted for where-as with the yagi which is not in equilibrium has
losses because the last element added fails to recover remaining
available radiation. This is not about getting a better antenna than a
yagi since the latter utelizes available radiation with less waste
than others. The patent is really about obtaining knowledge that fits
the bill of Maxwell's first equation and points to the static particle
accelerated
into a charge by a time varying current. It also brings into question
that put forward by the London brothers regarding cooper pairs as well
as the relationship of a proton. It also makes clear that the double
slot experiment
is correct in stating that particles and waves have similar
properties but makes very clear that the subject at hand
is very much a particle. Thus the bottom line is that Gauss provided
direction with respect to the static aproach AS WELL as the more well
known magnetic connection. It is also important to state again the
importance of maintaining equilibrium when persuing the laws of
Maxwell. I would also like to add my assertion
of just two vectors as the sole constituents of the standard model
that Einstein earlier suspected.
At the same time Maxwells law has not been fully satisfied as it has
not removed the intrinsic resistance of the radiators because of the
presence of skin effect and thus the magnetic field which has no
contribution to the accountability of all forces. However it is
important to note
that in superconductors removal of the magnetic field
achieves the desired action as would a Meander style radiator where in
the absence of skin depth the current
would rise to the surface thus eliminating resistance losses incurred
by the radiator, which now can add to the desired maximum radiation
efficiency by tackling the
radiation resistance, that is the only resistance left.
Thanks for your time
Regards
Art.

Oh my. I have to catch my breath. It hurts to laugh that hard.

"Darn" (censored), we are really going to miss you when you are finally
put away for your own protection. No one, NO ONE! can blather nonsense
like you. It is absolutely amazing.

tom
K0TAR

On Nov 1, 10:21*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Before this thread gets out of line again

All threads which begin with a post of yours "gets out of line".

On Nov 3, 12:51*am, Bill wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:21*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Before this thread gets out of line again

All threads which begin with a post of yours "gets out of line".

Maybe. But I proffer it to point out that Maxwells equation for
radiation is nothing but a formula if one concentrates on the electro
magnetics approach. It is the electro static approach of Gauss of
adding a time varying field to a Gaussian field to obtain maxwells
first equation, where the equation is given informative meaning and
direction which has deluded all for the past century. With respect to
the pursuit of equilibrium for all equations the idea that all
elements within a Gaussian boundary should be fed because they are all
resonant is a fallacy, as is having more than two elements. Newtons
laws demand only two opposing vectors to oppose the vectors of
gravity and spin which are the pillars of the "standard model" which
with respect to radiation show them selves as the direct variant
current vector and that of spin. I make a point of that because it
points the way for maximum efficiency by removal of resistance created
by skin depth restrictions to current flow to member surface. All the
above can be ascribed
to taking the statics approach in the exact formulation of Maxwell
equations, instead of the route taken by Maxwell by his addition such
that all units of his equation canceled out as required for
equilibrium. So yes, there will always be bickering when change is
suggested but the usual case is that a presented theory is technically
challenged by one peers rather than by taunts and jeers.
Regards
Art..... KB9MZ

On Nov 1, 11:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:35*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Nov 1, 10:03*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:29*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above has gone thru. I used a three element as my sample
illustration which in essence points to a maximum of two elements for
max efficiency. It will take an optimizer type program to explore the
intricasies of this design especially with focusing from outside the
boundary. Tho' any element can be chosen for feed but feeding all at
the same time is not really advantageous. Note that two elements
superimpose their patterns which resolve in to one. One for the Earths
circulation and you can guess what the other reflects. Note pattern
changes when mounting a vertical less than 90 degrees to the ground
surface
for all round observation. Rotation and spin can be seen as the
amalgamation of ALL the Standard Forces of the Universe as shown by
the DNA helix. The same is shown in radiation where particles resting
on a diamagnetic surface are made into a accelerated charge with spin
by applied varying current in association with displacement current
where the vector is seen as circulating thru the capacitive and the
added magnetic field contained inside the circulating displacement
current similar to that seen with a 'scope. Again we see the
observations by Gauss where the accelerating charge is the imposed
action
on a static particle inside a Gaussian boundary which is the root of
radiation and where a wave is the resulting pattern developed by the
flux movement or quanta.
Art KB9MZ...xg

another worthless patent... nothing new.

You overstate your capabilities while trying to suggest you are a
professor. Your response is a normal one after the fact. Remember you
were one of those who decided Gauss's connection to Maxwells law on
radiation was solely via his magnetic input totally ignoring his
connection via statics which is also the basis of
the Maxwell equation. When did you ever point out the truth with
respect to particles versus waves for the root of radiation? Heck, it
was only a few weeks ago that you went on about the Gaussian
contribution via magnetics and so denounce his contribution via
statics.
You can jump on the train if you want but you were never qualified to
drive it. Next somebody will point out an error and again you will
state you knew it all along! *Why don't you contest some of the Nobel
prize awards with your prior knowledge or win one on your own? *Yes,
you certainly overstate your own abilities and knowledge of the
Universe.

yeah, well i file your patents right next to the faster than light
antenna in my humor file.

Just like your past employer you have convinced me that you are truly
a scientist and that title was justifiably yours.

well, i'm glad you finally understand my background... except they are
still my current employer, and i fought them to keep the scientist
part out of the title, i wanted to just be an engineer since engineers
really know how to make things work and scientists just think they do.

On Nov 2, 2:34*am, tom wrote:
On 11/1/2010 3:02 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



The above has gone thru. I used a three element as my sample
illustration which in essence points to a maximum of two elements for
max efficiency. It will take an optimizer type program to explore the
intricasies of this design especially with focusing from outside the
boundary. Tho' any element can be chosen for feed but feeding all at
the same time is not really advantageous. Note that two elements
superimpose their patterns which resolve in to one. One for the Earths
circulation and you can guess what the other reflects. Note pattern
changes when mounting a vertical less than 90 degrees to the ground
surface
for all round observation. Rotation and spin can be seen as the
amalgamation of ALL the Standard Forces of the Universe as shown by
the DNA helix. The same is shown in radiation where particles resting
on a diamagnetic surface are made into a accelerated charge with spin
by applied varying current in association with displacement current
where the vector is seen as circulating thru the capacitive and the
added magnetic field contained inside the circulating displacement
current similar to that seen with a 'scope. Again we see the
observations by Gauss where the accelerating charge is the imposed
action
on a static particle inside a Gaussian boundary which is the root of
radiation and where a wave is the resulting pattern developed by the
flux movement or quanta.
Art KB9MZ...xg

Time again for medicine.

this is good stuff, i needed a good laugh today.