[Lostgallifreyan]

Actually, given my previous post, anyone familiar with all that is mentioned
in it can deduce how to build the diode driver and probably get lucky
choosing the op-amp. I want to keep it under the hat I haven't got for now,
but if someone comes up with it independently, go for it, I just hope it
gets shared and not patented. People say no way 200 KHz analog
proportional mod out of an LM317 as diode driver, but I'm fairly certain it's
viable. LTspice certainly thinks so, and its output matches what I've seen of
real output so I think I believe it. Not an antenna thing, so I'll leave it
there. Nice to be able to talk of it though. Keeps it alive somehow.

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 10, 1:22*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 9, 3:46*pm, Dave wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

and the other approaches offered are not accepted by you for
unspecified reasons.

i have been very specific about why they are not acceptable, there are
no specific equations that relate to something measurable, nor have
you made any predictions of things that aren't already well described
by existing laws and theories.

David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal
accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a
basis for the application of Maxwells equations.

maxwell's equations know nothing of the length of a conductor used as
a radiator. in fact, they say nothing about a conductor at all.
where in the equations is there even a length specified?? in the
differential form everything is reduced to either a gradient or curl,
there can of course be no length since everything is reduced to an
instant in time or a single point in space. in the integral form they
are done over volumes, over surfaces, or around closed loops, all with
arbitrary boundaries. And in none of them is there a conductivity or
resistivity term applied that would be necessary to model a conductive
element.

you might also be interested in this paragraph from Ramo, Whinnery,
and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communicaiton Electronics" pg 237
section 4.07 that puts your insistence on adding a 't' to Gauss's law
in perspective:

"Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form off Gauss's law utilized
so much in chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are
a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux
flowing out of any closed surface AT A GIVEN INSTANT is equal to the
charge enclosed by that surface AT THAT INSTANT."

Emphasis is THEIRS not mine, they were obviously anticipating your
objection and explaining why it isn't necessary to add a 't' to the
equation. I would put the 3 of them against your dr friend any day of
the week.

[Richard Clark]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:55:34 -0800 (PST), Dave wrote:

maxwell's equations know nothing of the length of a conductor used as
a radiator. in fact, they say nothing about a conductor at all.

Does Maxwell even use the word resonance? Reactance? Or any word
from the host of electrical components? Maxwell never even used the
term Gauss to signify the strength of a field! And neither did Gauss.

What DID Maxwell say about equilibrium?
"About the beginning of this century, the properties of bodies
were investigated by several distinguished French mathematicians
on the hypothesis that they are systems of molecules in
equilibrium. The somewhat unsatisfactory nature of the results of
these investigations produced, especially in this country, a
reaction in favour of the opposite method of treating bodies as if
they were, so far at least as our experiments are concerned, truly
continuous."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

[tom]

Dave wrote:

you might also be interested in this paragraph from Ramo, Whinnery,
and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communicaiton Electronics" pg 237
section 4.07 that puts your insistence on adding a 't' to Gauss's law
in perspective:

"Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form off Gauss's law utilized
so much in chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are
a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux
flowing out of any closed surface AT A GIVEN INSTANT is equal to the
charge enclosed by that surface AT THAT INSTANT."

Emphasis is THEIRS not mine, they were obviously anticipating your
objection and explaining why it isn't necessary to add a 't' to the
equation. I would put the 3 of them against your dr friend any day of
the week.


Come on Dave, they are only engineers, or even _worse_ PHYSICISTS!

They couldn't possibly compete with an intellect the likes of the one
brought to us by Art.

tom
K0TAR

[Frank[_12_]]

David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal
accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a
basis for the application of Maxwells equations.

maxwell's equations know nothing of the length of a conductor used as
a radiator. in fact, they say nothing about a conductor at all.
where in the equations is there even a length specified?? in the
differential form everything is reduced to either a gradient or curl,
there can of course be no length since everything is reduced to an
instant in time or a single point in space. in the integral form they
are done over volumes, over surfaces, or around closed loops, all with
arbitrary boundaries. And in none of them is there a conductivity or
resistivity term applied that would be necessary to model a conductive
element.

you might also be interested in this paragraph from Ramo, Whinnery,
and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communicaiton Electronics" pg 237
section 4.07 that puts your insistence on adding a 't' to Gauss's law
in perspective:

"Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form off Gauss's law utilized
so much in chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are
a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux
flowing out of any closed surface AT A GIVEN INSTANT is equal to the
charge enclosed by that surface AT THAT INSTANT."

Emphasis is THEIRS not mine, they were obviously anticipating your
objection and explaining why it isn't necessary to add a 't' to the
equation. I would put the 3 of them against your dr friend any day of
the week.

Has anybody noticed? This appears to be a pointless exercise.

How can you explain such concepts to one who has no understanding

of elementary math.



73,

Frank

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 12, 3:30*pm, "Frank" wrote:
David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal
accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a
basis for the application of Maxwells equations.
maxwell's equations know nothing of the length of a conductor used as
a radiator. *in fact, they say nothing about a conductor at all.
where in the equations is there even a length specified?? *in the
differential form everything is reduced to either a gradient or curl,
there can of course be no length since everything is reduced to an
instant in time or a single point in space. *in the integral form they
are done over volumes, over surfaces, or around closed loops, all with
arbitrary boundaries. *And in none of them is there a conductivity or
resistivity term applied that would be necessary to model a conductive
element.
you might also be interested in this paragraph from Ramo, *Whinnery,
and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communicaiton Electronics" pg 237
section 4.07 that puts your insistence on adding a 't' to Gauss's law
in perspective:
"Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form off Gauss's law utilized
so much in chapter 2. *Now that we are concerned with fields which are
a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux
flowing out of any closed surface AT A GIVEN INSTANT is equal to the
charge enclosed by that surface AT THAT INSTANT."
Emphasis is THEIRS not mine, they were obviously anticipating your
objection and explaining why it isn't necessary to add a 't' to the
equation. *I would put the 3 of them against your dr friend any day of
the week.

Has anybody noticed? *This appears to be a pointless exercise.

How can you explain such concepts to one who has no understanding

of elementary math.

73,

Frank

what would happen if next time we all just ignored art? would that be
fun or what!