On 29 Jun, 09:52, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art invoked the name of Issac Newton to support Art`s claim of
equlibrium defining a Gaussian antenna.

OK, Newton`s apple was in equilibrium until its support released the
apple to the force of the earth`s gravity (more properly the mutual
attraction between the apple and the earth but due to inertia the
earth`s motion was insignificant). The apple fell at an acceleration of
32 feet per second per second if my recollection is correct.

Gravitational force and electrical attraction force are different
phenomena with vastly differing strengths so I don`t see a necessary
correlation between the mass of an antenna and its electrical properties
and performance.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

You are welcome to take my place in answering David's very specific
questions
if you feel I am inadequate. I am certainly willing to stand aside
and get of the platform for an oration to be given in my place.
I will leave that descision up to David if he wants me to
leave the thread.

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we may yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other. This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us. This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium. If an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange itself to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of particles are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight, reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to give an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way can be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to be radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in equilibrium. it also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even along the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up tighter in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually. even a wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and voltages based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire summed up to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.

On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...



On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we may yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other. This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us. This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium. If an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange itself to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of particles are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight, reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to give an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way can be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to be radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in equilibrium. it also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even along the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up tighter in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually. even a wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and voltages based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire summed up to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG

On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we may yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other. This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us. This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium. If an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange itself to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of particles are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight, reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to give an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way can be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to be radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in equilibrium. it also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even along the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up tighter in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually. even a wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and voltages based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire summed up to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we may yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other. This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us. This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium. If an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange itself to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of particles are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight, reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to give an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way can be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to be radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in equilibrium. it also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even along the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up tighter in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually. even a wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and voltages based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire summed up to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, let me talk about equilibrium a little bit more as the lessons
learned
from many years on this newsgroup shows this to be a real stumbling
block.
For someone with a learned background there is a great emphasis on
the
mathematical side of proving concepts that were origional derived by
observation
of the universe where the student of the day concentrates more on the
mathematical
aspect which is required for a non oral examination. Thus it is
natural for
such a student to equate the "equal" term in mathematics to the word
"equilibrium"
Equilibrium can be used as an "equal" sign but certainly not always
and again the
"equilibrium" term cannot be interchanged easily with the term
"equilibrium"
As the Russian has pointed out that we have altered the path of
science by being
led by mechanical machines in number crunching style where numbers are
placed
into a grinder and where we examine the mix to see if anything usefull
comes out
and where the computor is used to magnify possible paths where the
resulting
mix in general goes no where. You now have to put another hat on and
rely on
that bit by bit observations becomes a story and where bits are
missing you use
intuition to bridge the gap that is consistent with the theme. It is
later
that mathematics comes into the picture where we check to see if there
is a
common realistic theme. Maxwell did this by collecting different
stories
and connected them by trails of a story into numbers and though he saw
a
connection between a static sbject and a dynamic subject he never
accumulated
enough clues to develop a story to match the mathematics. What we are
doing now
is going back in time using observations of the universe to form a
story even
tho the mathematical links are some what preknown as individual parts
as those
observers of the past would do by deduction and without the use of a
computor
Hope that helps rather than confused you but we are retracing the step
in the
past taken by Gauss.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Back to mowing the grass or.....coooo dee graaaar

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we may
yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian
antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other. This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us. This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium. If an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange itself to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of particles
are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its
constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight, reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to give an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way can be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to be
radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in equilibrium. it
also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even along
the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up tighter
in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually. even a
wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and voltages
based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's
orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire summed up
to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, let me talk about equilibrium a little bit more as the lessons
learned
from many years on this newsgroup shows this to be a real stumbling
block.
For someone with a learned background there is a great emphasis on
the
mathematical side of proving concepts that were origional derived by
observation
of the universe where the student of the day concentrates more on the
mathematical
aspect which is required for a non oral examination. Thus it is
natural for
such a student to equate the "equal" term in mathematics to the word
"equilibrium"
Equilibrium can be used as an "equal" sign but certainly not always
and again the
"equilibrium" term cannot be interchanged easily with the term
"equilibrium"
As the Russian has pointed out that we have altered the path of
science by being
led by mechanical machines in number crunching style where numbers are
placed
into a grinder and where we examine the mix to see if anything usefull
comes out
and where the computor is used to magnify possible paths where the
resulting
mix in general goes no where. You now have to put another hat on and
rely on
that bit by bit observations becomes a story and where bits are
missing you use
intuition to bridge the gap that is consistent with the theme. It is
later
that mathematics comes into the picture where we check to see if there
is a
common realistic theme. Maxwell did this by collecting different
stories
and connected them by trails of a story into numbers and though he saw
a
connection between a static sbject and a dynamic subject he never
accumulated
enough clues to develop a story to match the mathematics. What we are
doing now
is going back in time using observations of the universe to form a
story even
tho the mathematical links are some what preknown as individual parts
as those
observers of the past would do by deduction and without the use of a
computor
Hope that helps rather than confused you but we are retracing the step
in the
past taken by Gauss.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Back to mowing the grass or.....coooo dee graaaar


but what is in equilibrium when this single resonant gaussian element is fed
with rf and is radiating?

On 29 Jun, 14:18, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we may
yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian
antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other. This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us. This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium. If an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange itself to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of particles
are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its
constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight, reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to give an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way can be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to be
radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in equilibrium. it
also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even along
the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up tighter
in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually. even a
wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and voltages
based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's
orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire summed up
to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, let me talk about equilibrium a little bit more as the lessons
learned
from many years on this newsgroup shows this to be a real stumbling
block.
For someone with a learned background there is a great emphasis on
the
mathematical side of proving concepts that were origional derived by
observation
of the universe where the student of the day concentrates more on the
mathematical
aspect which is required for a non oral examination. Thus it is
natural for
such a student to equate the "equal" term in mathematics to the word
"equilibrium"
Equilibrium can be used as an "equal" sign but certainly not always
and again the
"equilibrium" term cannot be interchanged easily with the term
"equilibrium"
As the Russian has pointed out that we have altered the path of
science by being
led by mechanical machines in number crunching style where numbers are
placed
into a grinder and where we examine the mix to see if anything usefull
comes out
and where the computor is used to magnify possible paths where the
resulting
mix in general goes no where. You now have to put another hat on and
rely on
that bit by bit observations becomes a story and where bits are
missing you use
intuition to bridge the gap that is consistent with the theme. It is
later
that mathematics comes into the picture where we check to see if there
is a
common realistic theme. Maxwell did this by collecting different
stories
and connected them by trails of a story into numbers and though he saw
a
connection between a static sbject and a dynamic subject he never
accumulated
enough clues to develop a story to match the mathematics. What we are
doing now
is going back in time using observations of the universe to form a
story even
tho the mathematical links are some what preknown as individual parts
as those
observers of the past would do by deduction and without the use of a
computor
Hope that helps rather than confused you but we are retracing the step
in the
past taken by Gauss.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Back to mowing the grass or.....coooo dee graaaar

but what is in equilibrium when this single resonant gaussian element is fed
with rf and is radiating?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, Now it is you that is jumping to fast.
Let us go back to the last place where you said not to fast.
We were looking at what is termed a Gaussian field with the standard
"pillbox"
where inside are located some statitic particles. Pick up a book
and bone up just in this area since this drawing is commonplace but
add to the drawing
an outline of two elements where the surface of which have the static
particle resting.
Gauss talks about this picture a lot but he was not aware of such
things as antennas
only static particles where we know better than that because elements
have static particles
that rest on the surface of conductive items on this earth and we will
want to deduce how these particles react when given an electrical
shock
since we know that most people jump when they come into contact with
it.
Bone up on Gausses law of staics and the pill box picture that one
associated with that law.
Don't forget that the elements that we are adding to this drawing is
in effect a bunch of gyroscopes
covered with static particles or what is called electrons at rest.

Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 29 Jun, 14:18, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we may
yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian
antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where
each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state
where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other.
This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us.
This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium. If
an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange itself
to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by
equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles
shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of particles
are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its
constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight,
reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to give
an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way can
be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three
dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces
involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to be
radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in equilibrium.
it
also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even along
the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up
tighter
in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually. even
a
wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and
voltages
based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's
orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire summed
up
to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, let me talk about equilibrium a little bit more as the lessons
learned
from many years on this newsgroup shows this to be a real stumbling
block.
For someone with a learned background there is a great emphasis on
the
mathematical side of proving concepts that were origional derived by
observation
of the universe where the student of the day concentrates more on the
mathematical
aspect which is required for a non oral examination. Thus it is
natural for
such a student to equate the "equal" term in mathematics to the word
"equilibrium"
Equilibrium can be used as an "equal" sign but certainly not always
and again the
"equilibrium" term cannot be interchanged easily with the term
"equilibrium"
As the Russian has pointed out that we have altered the path of
science by being
led by mechanical machines in number crunching style where numbers are
placed
into a grinder and where we examine the mix to see if anything usefull
comes out
and where the computor is used to magnify possible paths where the
resulting
mix in general goes no where. You now have to put another hat on and
rely on
that bit by bit observations becomes a story and where bits are
missing you use
intuition to bridge the gap that is consistent with the theme. It is
later
that mathematics comes into the picture where we check to see if there
is a
common realistic theme. Maxwell did this by collecting different
stories
and connected them by trails of a story into numbers and though he saw
a
connection between a static sbject and a dynamic subject he never
accumulated
enough clues to develop a story to match the mathematics. What we are
doing now
is going back in time using observations of the universe to form a
story even
tho the mathematical links are some what preknown as individual parts
as those
observers of the past would do by deduction and without the use of a
computor
Hope that helps rather than confused you but we are retracing the step
in the
past taken by Gauss.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Back to mowing the grass or.....coooo dee graaaar

but what is in equilibrium when this single resonant gaussian element is
fed
with rf and is radiating?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, Now it is you that is jumping to fast.
Let us go back to the last place where you said not to fast.
We were looking at what is termed a Gaussian field with the standard
"pillbox"
where inside are located some statitic particles. Pick up a book
and bone up just in this area since this drawing is commonplace but
add to the drawing
an outline of two elements where the surface of which have the static
particle resting.
Gauss talks about this picture a lot but he was not aware of such
things as antennas
only static particles where we know better than that because elements
have static particles
that rest on the surface of conductive items on this earth and we will
want to deduce how these particles react when given an electrical
shock
since we know that most people jump when they come into contact with
it.
Bone up on Gausses law of staics and the pill box picture that one
associated with that law.
Don't forget that the elements that we are adding to this drawing is
in effect a bunch of gyroscopes
covered with static particles or what is called electrons at rest.

Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG


but on radiating antennas the electrons are not at rest. a static case
doesn't do me any good when i want to get a signal out to the world. so
when the electrons are being pushed and pulled back and forth on the
resonant elements, what is in equilibrium?

On 29 Jun, 17:12, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 29 Jun, 14:18, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we may
yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian
antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where
each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state
where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other.
This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us.
This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium. If
an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange itself
to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by
equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles
shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of particles
are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its
constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight,
reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to give
an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way can
be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three
dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces
involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to be
radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in equilibrium.
it
also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even along
the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up
tighter
in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually. even
a
wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and
voltages
based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's
orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire summed
up
to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, let me talk about equilibrium a little bit more as the lessons
learned
from many years on this newsgroup shows this to be a real stumbling
block.
For someone with a learned background there is a great emphasis on
the
mathematical side of proving concepts that were origional derived by
observation
of the universe where the student of the day concentrates more on the
mathematical
aspect which is required for a non oral examination. Thus it is
natural for
such a student to equate the "equal" term in mathematics to the word
"equilibrium"
Equilibrium can be used as an "equal" sign but certainly not always
and again the
"equilibrium" term cannot be interchanged easily with the term
"equilibrium"
As the Russian has pointed out that we have altered the path of
science by being
led by mechanical machines in number crunching style where numbers are
placed
into a grinder and where we examine the mix to see if anything usefull
comes out
and where the computor is used to magnify possible paths where the
resulting
mix in general goes no where. You now have to put another hat on and
rely on
that bit by bit observations becomes a story and where bits are
missing you use
intuition to bridge the gap that is consistent with the theme. It is
later
that mathematics comes into the picture where we check to see if there
is a
common realistic theme. Maxwell did this by collecting different
stories
and connected them by trails of a story into numbers and though he saw
a
connection between a static sbject and a dynamic subject he never
accumulated
enough clues to develop a story to match the mathematics. What we are
doing now
is going back in time using observations of the universe to form a
story even
tho the mathematical links are some what preknown as individual parts
as those
observers of the past would do by deduction and without the use of a
computor
Hope that helps rather than confused you but we are retracing the step
in the
past taken by Gauss.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Back to mowing the grass or.....coooo dee graaaar

but what is in equilibrium when this single resonant gaussian element is
fed
with rf and is radiating?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, Now it is you that is jumping to fast.
Let us go back to the last place where you said not to fast.
We were looking at what is termed a Gaussian field with the standard
"pillbox"
where inside are located some statitic particles. Pick up a book
and bone up just in this area since this drawing is commonplace but
add to the drawing
an outline of two elements where the surface of which have the static
particle resting.
Gauss talks about this picture a lot but he was not aware of such
things as antennas
only static particles where we know better than that because elements
have static particles
that rest on the surface of conductive items on this earth and we will
want to deduce how these particles react when given an electrical
shock
since we know that most people jump when they come into contact with
it.
Bone up on Gausses law of staics and the pill box picture that one
associated with that law.
Don't forget that the elements that we are adding to this drawing is
in effect a bunch of gyroscopes
covered with static particles or what is called electrons at rest.

Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but on radiating antennas the electrons are not at rest. a static case
doesn't do me any good when i want to get a signal out to the world. so
when the electrons are being pushed and pulled back and forth on the
resonant elements, what is in equilibrium?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True. But we have set up two elements in a state of equilibrium with a
static partical
resting on their surface He stated that all within the circle must be
in equilibrium.
We know the elements are resonant and in equilibrium together with the
static particles.
So now we are set to do exactly what Gauss did in formulating the
Gaussian law.
He projected two vectors from each element on to the pillbox and then
applied a jolt of electricity
to one of the elements and since both elements were in equilibrium
with each other one
can say in effect that a jolt was applied to the assembly as a whole.
Now we can use some more information that we have come across which is
that a jolt of electricity
produces two vectors per element.The jolt provides a vector force
along the length of each element at the same time and a vector at
right angles to the line of theelement. Both of these vectors provide
their own fields. With some sort of engineering background we can add
vectors to provide a single vector aimed somewhere in the middle of
the two vectors and at an angle to the element. Immediately we see
that if a jolt was applied to an element it will not be at right
angles to both elements as one would see if two elements were coupled
as per a Yagi so we will be looking at a different arrangement of
vectors that one would reasonably occur in terms of radiation as we
know it. This a deduction that we deduced from the vector direction
only since each vector is of zero length because the time length of
the jolt was less than nothing i.e.dt. So we have learned that when
power is applied to the assembly or array that the vector sum
of the both field vectors will be somewhere in between both vectors of
some magnitude depending on the time allotted for power to be applied
together with type of wave of the same power supply.
O.K. David. If I had placed a yagi inside the circle we would have
expected some sort of vector at right angles to the element to
represent coupling but for some reason this did not occurr
The reasons why there is a difference is that a yagi needs more time
for each element to react with others
even after the jolt stopped because it needs time to react with other
elements before the radiation journey begins . The other reason is
that we do know that a radiation vector is at right angles to the
radiating elements via coupling for a yagi. From this we know that we
are going to produce radiation in a different
radiation pattern to a yagi. Also a yagi cannot be used in this
instance because only the driven element
is resonant at the frequency in use and the entire array cannot be in
a state of equilibrium which is a requirement for proceding along the
lines of Gaussian law of statics.
Depending on your next question we are going to apply a jolt of power
to the array we have made of a specific length of time where the power
is of a specific wave for to look at how the fields are made.
Forgot to mention another observable and that is when the jolt of
power was supplied the race to the end of
each element created by the jolt resulted in a tie!
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 29 Jun, 17:12, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 29 Jun, 14:18, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 29 Jun, 12:11, art wrote:
On 29 Jun, 11:50, "Dave" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 29 Jun, 07:02, art wrote:
On 25 Jun, 13:10, "Dave" wrote:

Ok, lets try it this way... step by step, inch by inch, we
may
yet
figure
out what this antenna is.

First question:
What is the least number of wires needed to build a gaussian
antenna?

Posting check
Art

Isaac Newton like scientist before him observed the World and
the
Universe
for clues about what it was all about. He determined that each
particle, each object,
each planet all had their own gravitational centers. And where
each
minute particle
was made of atoms etc all orbiting around each other in a state
where
these orbiting
partcles were able to move in isolation with respect to other
particles in orbit
because all forces became balanced with respect to each other.
This
theory was
based on observations on the make up of the universe around us.
This
balancing of
parts and particles is called being in a state of equilibrium.
If
an
exterior
force was applied the Universe has a whole would rearrange
itself
to
retain
equilibrium by accomodation
Thus we can see an element as something held together by
equilibrium
and where
its constituent parts is a densily packed swarm of particles
shaped
in longitudinal
physical form and where the surface of this entity has its
surface
completely covered
by errant particles called electrons. This collection of
particles
are
so densly packed
that it appears to be a solid and where the make up of its
constituent
particls and atoms
provide a distingtive appearance which allows identification
with
respect to other combinations
of densly packed swarms of particles and atoms via weight,
reflective
qualities e.t c
I have stated the above in a very generalistic way purely to
give
an
understanding of the
meaning of the word "equilibrium" which in a generalistic way
can
be
seen as a somewhat stable
existance of parts in concert with other parts in a three
dimensional
existance where its "stable"
existance is created because of the totalility of all forces
involved
equals the sum of ZERO.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but an antenna is by necessity a dynamic thing. it is meant to
be
radiating
or absorbing energy which to me means it can not be in
equilibrium.
it
also
must have rapidly varying currents and voltages such that even
along
the
length of the wire there is no equilibrium, electrons pack up
tighter
in one
area and less in another forcing currents to flow continually.
even
a
wire
that is not directly fed from a transmitter has currents and
voltages
based
on how close it is to a wire driven from a transmitter, it's
orientation,
and it's length. electrically if all the fields from a wire
summed
up
to
zero there could be no power flowing and hence no antenna.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I fully understand your quandry David because with your knoweledge
despite
what you say is trying to jump ahead of the story to get at the
desired end.
Just relax and follow my story without resistance as a child
without
prior knoweledge
would when he is sitting down and listening to an orator describing
a
story.
The point of the story is at a point of arranging two pieces of
metal
that has no external forces exacted upon them and where each piece
of
metal
can be seen as a static part of the earth even tho it is made of
zillions of gyroscopes spinning in a comppressed area and that
because
of the
balanced rotation of parts are staying together as a swarm of parts
without disintergration to dust. You have to understand the nature
of mass or energy of things so you can anticipate the reaction to
an external force that impinges on its equilibrium . Until that
happens
we are reffering to an arrangement that is not dynamic but static
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, let me talk about equilibrium a little bit more as the
lessons
learned
from many years on this newsgroup shows this to be a real stumbling
block.
For someone with a learned background there is a great emphasis on
the
mathematical side of proving concepts that were origional derived by
observation
of the universe where the student of the day concentrates more on
the
mathematical
aspect which is required for a non oral examination. Thus it is
natural for
such a student to equate the "equal" term in mathematics to the word
"equilibrium"
Equilibrium can be used as an "equal" sign but certainly not always
and again the
"equilibrium" term cannot be interchanged easily with the term
"equilibrium"
As the Russian has pointed out that we have altered the path of
science by being
led by mechanical machines in number crunching style where numbers
are
placed
into a grinder and where we examine the mix to see if anything
usefull
comes out
and where the computor is used to magnify possible paths where the
resulting
mix in general goes no where. You now have to put another hat on and
rely on
that bit by bit observations becomes a story and where bits are
missing you use
intuition to bridge the gap that is consistent with the theme. It is
later
that mathematics comes into the picture where we check to see if
there
is a
common realistic theme. Maxwell did this by collecting different
stories
and connected them by trails of a story into numbers and though he
saw
a
connection between a static sbject and a dynamic subject he never
accumulated
enough clues to develop a story to match the mathematics. What we
are
doing now
is going back in time using observations of the universe to form a
story even
tho the mathematical links are some what preknown as individual
parts
as those
observers of the past would do by deduction and without the use of a
computor
Hope that helps rather than confused you but we are retracing the
step
in the
past taken by Gauss.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Back to mowing the grass or.....coooo dee graaaar

but what is in equilibrium when this single resonant gaussian element
is
fed
with rf and is radiating?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David, Now it is you that is jumping to fast.
Let us go back to the last place where you said not to fast.
We were looking at what is termed a Gaussian field with the standard
"pillbox"
where inside are located some statitic particles. Pick up a book
and bone up just in this area since this drawing is commonplace but
add to the drawing
an outline of two elements where the surface of which have the static
particle resting.
Gauss talks about this picture a lot but he was not aware of such
things as antennas
only static particles where we know better than that because elements
have static particles
that rest on the surface of conductive items on this earth and we will
want to deduce how these particles react when given an electrical
shock
since we know that most people jump when they come into contact with
it.
Bone up on Gausses law of staics and the pill box picture that one
associated with that law.
Don't forget that the elements that we are adding to this drawing is
in effect a bunch of gyroscopes
covered with static particles or what is called electrons at rest.

Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

but on radiating antennas the electrons are not at rest. a static case
doesn't do me any good when i want to get a signal out to the world. so
when the electrons are being pushed and pulled back and forth on the
resonant elements, what is in equilibrium?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True. But we have set up two elements in a state of equilibrium with a
static partical
resting on their surface He stated that all within the circle must be
in equilibrium.
We know the elements are resonant and in equilibrium together with the
static particles.
So now we are set to do exactly what Gauss did in formulating the
Gaussian law.
He projected two vectors from each element on to the pillbox and then
applied a jolt of electricity
to one of the elements and since both elements were in equilibrium
with each other one
can say in effect that a jolt was applied to the assembly as a whole.
Now we can use some more information that we have come across which is
that a jolt of electricity
produces two vectors per element.The jolt provides a vector force
along the length of each element at the same time and a vector at
right angles to the line of theelement. Both of these vectors provide
their own fields. With some sort of engineering background we can add
vectors to provide a single vector aimed somewhere in the middle of
the two vectors and at an angle to the element. Immediately we see
that if a jolt was applied to an element it will not be at right
angles to both elements as one would see if two elements were coupled
as per a Yagi so we will be looking at a different arrangement of
vectors that one would reasonably occur in terms of radiation as we
know it. This a deduction that we deduced from the vector direction
only since each vector is of zero length because the time length of
the jolt was less than nothing i.e.dt. So we have learned that when
power is applied to the assembly or array that the vector sum
of the both field vectors will be somewhere in between both vectors of
some magnitude depending on the time allotted for power to be applied
together with type of wave of the same power supply.
O.K. David. If I had placed a yagi inside the circle we would have
expected some sort of vector at right angles to the element to
represent coupling but for some reason this did not occurr
The reasons why there is a difference is that a yagi needs more time
for each element to react with others
even after the jolt stopped because it needs time to react with other
elements before the radiation journey begins . The other reason is
that we do know that a radiation vector is at right angles to the
radiating elements via coupling for a yagi. From this we know that we
are going to produce radiation in a different
radiation pattern to a yagi. Also a yagi cannot be used in this
instance because only the driven element
is resonant at the frequency in use and the entire array cannot be in
a state of equilibrium which is a requirement for proceding along the
lines of Gaussian law of statics.
Depending on your next question we are going to apply a jolt of power
to the array we have made of a specific length of time where the power
is of a specific wave for to look at how the fields are made.
Forgot to mention another observable and that is when the jolt of
power was supplied the race to the end of
each element created by the jolt resulted in a tie!
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG


you are jumping ahead to far again and this results in misunderstanding of
what you are saying. please go back to the single element and apply a jolt
to it and explain how it is in equilibrium. with 2 elements like you try to
explain it still doesn't make sense.