🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Ylgwc.144917$6P6.7471195@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.0406041517.1baabf02@posting.google.com...
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > We published a new paper
> 
> Does it use your World Famous Russian Non-Zero Curl(Grad(phi))
> again?
> 
> Dirk Vdm

It's so nice that you came to this thread with this question. I just
wanted to return to that unfinished subject - divergence. I found your
mistake. If you go again to that site which at due time I made for you
and recall the selected in red, this is really a mistake. Substituting
the variables in derivatives, you did not substitute the variable in
this multiplier. If you make it, you will yield my result, not zero as
you calculated. More detailed I will reply in few days.

As to gradient, you bother in vain. The matter is not that the curl of
gradient of full potential turns to zero, but that (i) draw your
attention that you are considering the scalar potential time-dependent
and having the delay phase. This is not Maxwellian formalism already.
Such scalar potential is calibratively invariant;

(ii)...

all further points I will write you in a few days. But seemingly I
gave you some information to think.

You may read the advertised paper, it is not based on the curl(gad). 
But there is present the dynamic scalar potential. ;-)

Regards,

Sergey