Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Gaussian patent
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
(OT) Inventing a Better Patent System | Antenna | |||
Interesting patent | Shortwave | |||
New patent application rules | Antenna | |||
Interesting patent | Antenna | |||
Patent regulations | Antenna |