Derek wrote in
:

On Dec 7, 10:13 am, Mike Coslo wrote

Doesn't work that way, sir.

If I say that antennas work by shooting little turds off the ends of
the wires, it isn't Roy's job to prove it, it's mine.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike
What you say is very true, but, Art is not looking for
confirmation he has already stated that he is not going to hand his
findings to
this group on a plate.
What he is trying to do is guide others to find for themselves what
he already knows.

In my attempts to engage art, he's rebuffed my knowledge (more like lack
of it) I'm supposed to come back after I learn more. But learn what?
Theory that he declares is incorrect, or his theories which he won't
serve up? The others will share with me.

I'm just not much of a fan of faith based engineering! ;^)

To convince others of a new and radical departure from what exists and
what apparently works, one nust offer good proofs. The old
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" chestnut applies. And
especially for people such as Roy, who has often been decried by Art. He
is under no obligation to prove Art either right or wrong.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message



art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!


Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.


Derek.

On Dec 6, 8:07 pm, Derek wrote:


Hi Mike
What you say is very true, but, Art is not looking for
confirmation

He wants RRAA validation.. :/

he has already stated that he is not going to hand his findings to
this group on a plate.

After the 3496 miles of fairly incoherant jibber jabber I've read of
his,
I'm so confused I don't even know what his "findings" would be. :/
They seem to change from week to week anyway.
He was touting maximum horizontal polarization, but in his latest
post claims vertical is the only way to fly.
He'll claim all elements are fed in phase, but then claim only
one element is fed. He claims that if you are not using a full
wavelength element, you are not living, and just don't get it.
Like the old codger with too many dogs in "Moonstruck", I'm confused..
:/
But if you talk to Art, he is the only sane one in the group, and
we are all the confused ones.
Everyone, including the electronic engineers of the group are all
living in the past, brain dead, or just don't get it.
But Art, the mechanical engineer who is dabbling in an area
he is not really trained for, has all the answers, and is ready
to rewrite all the books.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this vast overhaul
of gaussian equalibriated gobblygook into the future textbooks..
I have no problem at all with anyone trying new ideas, but
they should test and prove them before proclaiming as fact,
rather than the other way around.
Art talks a great storm, but I see little indication he actually
builds and tests what he is talking about.
As I've muttered before, that is no way to live.
Want to know what the real deal is?
I can tell you.
Delusions of grandeur brought on by his various computer
modeling programs he tinkers with.
He stumbles into something he finds interesting when
modeling, and then he tries to use gaussian bafflegab to
explain it as some new invention. I'm serious.
I can see no other explanation for this behavior.

What he is trying to do is guide others to find for themselves what
he already knows.

How does he know I want to find what he already thinks he knows?
He seems to want to gravitate towards small overly lossy antennas
designed using fairly perverted theories of operation.
I'll have none of that mess around this household.
I want big manly ultra efficient antennas that brown the food in all
directions at once.
MK

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message



art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got
in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!


Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.


Derek.

Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field, and
hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the complete
solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to Gauss's law as
it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the fields produced.

i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in it.
by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you can
have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is just
outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from that
one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and all
still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for the hard
part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface without going
through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it the electric
field strength through the surface closest to the charge is increasing, so
in order for the total flux through the surface to remain zero the flux
moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT because of the effects
of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the speed of propagation of that
field to c it can't happen instantaneously. so for some period of time the
net flux through the surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone.
reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....

wrote:
On Dec 6, 7:13 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Derek wrote in news:7437a21d-524e-43c8-95b1-
:

On Dec 6, 11:43 am, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Hi Roy
You have the program, do as Art say's and tell us what it
comes up with.
Doesn't work that way, sir.

If I say that antennas work by shooting little turds off the ends of the
wires, it isn't Roy's job to prove it, it's mine.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Post of the week.
Thanks - I almost didn't post it. But th evisualization was too much.

You win a free Britney Spears oven mitt!

eww.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On 7 Dec, 04:16, "Dave" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

...





On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message

art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got
in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!

Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.

Derek.

Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field, and
hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the complete
solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to Gauss's law as
it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the fields produced.

i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in it.
by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you can
have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is just
outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from that
one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and all
still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for the hard
part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface without going
through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it the electric
field strength through the surface closest to the charge is increasing, so
in order for the total flux through the surface to remain zero the flux
moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT because of the effects
of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the speed of propagation of that
field to c it can't happen instantaneously. so for some period of time the
net flux through the surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone.
reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Regarding Dr Davis's mathematics. Richard stated the other week that
of course it is correct. If you feel that he also is in error
why not contact him? I am sure he can comminicate why much more
clearer than I
You are now left with the troll KB9... in your efforts to argue that
point
I personaly recognise that I will never be able your mental state up
to par
with respect to Gauss or your troubles with the word equilibrium.
There is hope for you however , Roy now states that NEWTON of all
people is wrong so you do have company in a strange way.
But then it may be company that you wouldn't wish for!
He personally attacked Cecil some timeago. Last week his personal
attack on me
was really venomous so you certainly should not disagree with him in
any way.
I think you would be better off asking guidance from Richard, why not
try it?
Art

"Dave" wrote in message
news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04...

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message



art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he
got in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!


Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.


Derek.

Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field,
and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the
complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to
Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the
fields produced.

i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in
it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you
can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is
just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from
that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and
all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for
the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface
without going through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it
the electric field strength through the surface closest to the charge is
increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface to remain
zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT
because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the
speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen instantaneously.
so for some period of time the net flux through the surface is not zero as
would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new
theory and....




hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that i
haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't
correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically pushed
through the integration surface and make up for the extra field? oh wait,
then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where it the
diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the 10m
contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group.

"Dave" wrote in message
newsov6j.253$va7.168@trndny08...

"Dave" wrote in message
news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04...

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message



art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he
got in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!


Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.


Derek.

Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field,
and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the
complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to
Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to
the fields produced.

i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in
it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you
can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron
is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field
from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the
other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law.
now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the
surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you are
moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to the
charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface
to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase.
BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit
the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen
instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the
surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad
absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....




hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that i
haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't
correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically
pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field?
oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where it
the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the
10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group.


Should be easy enough to check the claims. If as Art suggests there is a
constant interchange of particles in the surface element of a radiator, then
some detectable physical changes should take place. Construct an antenna
using anodised aluminium (aluminum for US readers) for the radiating
element. Take some smaller (non resonant pieces) and mount them some
distance away from the antenna but exposed to similar environmental
conditions. Leave for a year or so and then examine the radiating element
surface and compare with the samples. Is there any difference in the surface
structure?

The samples should be non resonant, of the same batch material as the
antenna and arranged so that they are not likely to radiate or absorb RF
energy from the test antenna, while still being exposed to the same
weathering and other factors as the test antenna.

Mike G0ULI
Using anodised al

On 8 Dec, 07:30, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

newsov6j.253$va7.168@trndny08...





"Dave" wrote in message
news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04...

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message

art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he
got in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!

Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.

Derek.

Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field,
and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the
complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to
Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to
the fields produced.

i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in
it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you
can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron
is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field
from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the
other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law.
now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the
surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you are
moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to the
charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface
to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase.
BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit
the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen
instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the
surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad
absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....

hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that i
haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't
correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically
pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field?
oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where it
the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the
10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group.

Should be easy enough to check the claims. If as Art suggests there is a
constant interchange of particles in the surface element of a radiator, then
some detectable physical changes should take place. Construct an antenna
using anodised aluminium (aluminum for US readers) for the radiating
element. Take some smaller (non resonant pieces) and mount them some
distance away from the antenna but exposed to similar environmental
conditions. Leave for a year or so and then examine the radiating element
surface and compare with the samples. Is there any difference in the surface
structure?

The samples should be non resonant, of the same batch material as the
antenna and arranged so that they are not likely to radiate or absorb RF
energy from the test antenna, while still being exposed to the same
weathering and other factors as the test antenna.

Mike G0ULI
Using anodised al- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike that is a novel aproach but it does appear that
exposure to the antmosphere of any element cnnot be prevented
i.e. pin hole propargation which is evidenced by my mercedes
plating processes. However the guts of GUT is the unification
of mechanical laws ( revolving around equilibrium) with electro
magnetic laws. There is no simpler way to verify that cvonnection
than to verify the required angle for a radiator to produced a
uniform radiation such as horizontal polarization. This is a
direct connection that can now be resolved by the use of computor
programs that follow Maxwell and not the equilibrium dictates
of the mechanical world. That is the test for finality in this quest,
an acceptable unity between the sciences.I am beginning to believe
that most of the participants do nor have a computor program or
even a trust in the results when it shown that is formed around
empirical evalution and not solely on Maxwells laws without
suspect additional conditions.To my mind anybody who is antenna
computor savvy would leap at the chance of determining the structure
of a particular radiator to become a leader in this debate, but
unfortunately there are none. When the programmer involved with Eznec
refutes the validity of accepted mechanical laws or dismisses the
notion of non frictional environments there would appear to be some
merit
in questioning their "corrective" actions which for a viable law such
as
Maxwell's is somewhat fraudulent.
For the same person to descend into personal attacks in defence of
his posture certainly suggests that his limits of viability.
have been some what strained
Like Cecil he has a large amount of knoweledge which in itself is
not enough when the quest in total victory and elimination to all
oponents
What a waste of such valuable brain power.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)
has been some what strained

"art" wrote in message
...
On 8 Dec, 07:30, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

newsov6j.253$va7.168@trndny08...





"Dave" wrote in message
news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04...

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message

art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has
he
got in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!

Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.

Derek.

Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a
time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you
have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then
you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric
field,
and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the
complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to
Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to
the fields produced.

i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed
in
it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero.
you
can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single
electron
is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the
field
from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the
other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's
law.
now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the
surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you
are
moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to
the
charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the
surface
to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also
increase.
BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit
the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen
instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the
surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad
absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....

hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that
i
haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't
correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically
pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field?
oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where
it
the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the
10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group.

Should be easy enough to check the claims. If as Art suggests there is a
constant interchange of particles in the surface element of a radiator,
then
some detectable physical changes should take place. Construct an antenna
using anodised aluminium (aluminum for US readers) for the radiating
element. Take some smaller (non resonant pieces) and mount them some
distance away from the antenna but exposed to similar environmental
conditions. Leave for a year or so and then examine the radiating element
surface and compare with the samples. Is there any difference in the
surface
structure?

The samples should be non resonant, of the same batch material as the
antenna and arranged so that they are not likely to radiate or absorb RF
energy from the test antenna, while still being exposed to the same
weathering and other factors as the test antenna.

Mike G0ULI
Using anodised al- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike that is a novel aproach but it does appear that
exposure to the antmosphere of any element cnnot be prevented
i.e. pin hole propargation which is evidenced by my mercedes
plating processes. However the guts of GUT is the unification
of mechanical laws ( revolving around equilibrium) with electro
magnetic laws. There is no simpler way to verify that cvonnection
than to verify the required angle for a radiator to produced a
uniform radiation such as horizontal polarization. This is a
direct connection that can now be resolved by the use of computor
programs that follow Maxwell and not the equilibrium dictates
of the mechanical world. That is the test for finality in this quest,
an acceptable unity between the sciences.I am beginning to believe
that most of the participants do nor have a computor program or
even a trust in the results when it shown that is formed around
empirical evalution and not solely on Maxwells laws without
suspect additional conditions.To my mind anybody who is antenna
computor savvy would leap at the chance of determining the structure
of a particular radiator to become a leader in this debate, but
unfortunately there are none. When the programmer involved with Eznec
refutes the validity of accepted mechanical laws or dismisses the
notion of non frictional environments there would appear to be some
merit
in questioning their "corrective" actions which for a viable law such
as
Maxwell's is somewhat fraudulent.
For the same person to descend into personal attacks in defence of
his posture certainly suggests that his limits of viability.
have been some what strained
Like Cecil he has a large amount of knoweledge which in itself is
not enough when the quest in total victory and elimination to all
oponents
What a waste of such valuable brain power.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)
has been some what strained

Hi Art,

Provided that the antenna and sample pieces are exposed to the same
atmospheric effects, gross damage such as random pinholing to the surface
will be identical in all pieces. However I believe that the antenna element
should additionally show a regular pattern of disturbance caused by standing
waves which might be identified using electron microscopy or just possibly a
high power visual microscope.

Computer modelling has its place, but all computer models are constrained by
the constants and formulae used to calculate the final results. When the
computer model does not agree with physical measurements in the real world,
then one of three conclusions may be drawn. The wrong data has been entered,
the real world measurement is in error, or a previously unknown variable
needs to be taken into account and added to the computer model. Of the three
possibilities, the last is the most unlikely if the model is mature and
correctly predicts the behaviour of known, experimentally proven systems.

In order to successfuly add a new calculating method to a computer model, it
must correctly match the existing results while also correctly predicting
the new previously unknown behaviour. This is not a trivial task and it is
insufficient to just add a correction factor as this just demonstrates that
the true nature of the problem is not understood.

NEC based programs follow well proven principles, but are not the holy grail
in being able to predict the performance of all antenna types or
configurations. They can accurately predict 'established' antenna design
performance in most circumstances and give a useful insight into what
properties a new and previously untried design might have. The programs are,
of necessity, constrained by the accuracy of the physical measurements and
formulae used in writing the original program.

I do not consider the challenge to Newton's Laws to be valid. Just because
there is no true vacuum anywhere in the universe, as far as can be
established, then all objects will eventually come to rest due to friction.
This does not invalidate the premis that in the absence of friction or any
other external influence, an object would continue in motion along a
straight path forever.

Ultimately whatever predictions are made by computer modelling programs or
theory, the only measure of success is by physical measurement in the real
world.

Mike G0ULI