Gentlemen
I go back to this thread again where the challenge was put to existing
radiation laws.
I extended Gauss's law from static to dynamic and used it with
standard
antenna program to obtain Gaussian style antennas. How could that be?
Because antenna programs are based on Maxwells laws and my
extension of Gauss's law proved to be the same as Maxwells law.
The results I obtained were tested on this newsgroup and proved to be
O.K.
So then the plea for mathematical proof. A Dr Davis came on the
scene with no connection to me and systematically went thru the whole
mathematical procedure to confirmmy aproach. Nobody fauled his
mathematical proof and it still survives.
If Maxwell had the same info he would have used Gauss instead of
others
but that was not to be. Gauss's extension clearly shows that radiation
is from a tank circuit form. It also shows ( on any computor program)
that for maximum gain of a particular polarity a radiator must not be
parallel etc with the earths surface. The angle that the programs
give
is the resultant vector of all those ( curl, fields etc) vectors used
in
analysing radiation. If you review the Gaussian statics law thread
again
you can examine the mathematics involved for yourselves.
So far it has sirvived every challenge including a NEC4 computor
check on this newsgroup. If present radiation theory is to remain
intact then errors must be found in this challenge but none have
proved succesful. So why attack a person who says that maybe
Art is correct? Why not attack the veracity of the mathematics
or what computor programs produce? why not declare what the
capacitance and inductance factors have to do with radiation
per Maxwells laws which is different to what I have shown?
Hams continually ask of new antennas to show me the
mathematics that back the new idea when all know full
well that most hams are not competant enough to even
understand that level of mathematics. Using the mathematics
presented solves the radiation story once and for all, the old theory
does not survive the challenge. So don't go after the "g" station
for stating that I may be correct, prove to him that I am in error
which ofcourse you can't.
Regards
Art Unwin..KB9MZ.....XG

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

Arthur :-( Too many words on one line?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC