" wrote in message
news:l9nUc.268067$a24.245272@attbi_s03...
No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious. At the same time I am
always
wary of any aproach by you
as the subject always get shifted and then we are off to the races.
Cecil pointed it out correctly with respect to power. If you were to solve
a parallel circuit using complex circuit methyods the criteria is energy
conservation
but where individual parts change their form of energy s we cannot glibly
say that it revoves about
power or that I am referring to perpetual motion which is how Roy
dismisses
the thread but with no supporting data.
Now you say that accelleration and decellaration of protons are not the
true
basis for radiation
which certainly suggests that the subject is moot as the question starts
off
with a fallacy.
Art

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:13:14 GMT, "
wrote:

Soooooo I am reconciled to the fact
that
there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow
reasonable discussion.

In otherwords you are trolling.


While I do not believe you are trolling I can understand why others would
believe you are. I was not certain for a long time. The problem seems to be
a lack of common knowledge between you and those whom you are trying to
converse. To explain to you why you are wrong you first have to be educated
in antenna theory at least to an elementary degree. Unfortunately you tend
to reject the knowledge that other have learned over time, You read and try
to bend facts to fit your own preconceived ideas instead of taking them at
their face value. Frankly trying to explain something to you is so tedious
that most people just give up. If you truly want to learn you should try a
classroom environment. This is the wrong place to get all the information
you want starting at the ground up.