On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:42:10 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote:


Brown, Lewis and Epstein were REPORTING, not inventing, nor offering
pedant readings of scripture. Scribes, such as we are, are free to
interpret within the bounds of their own data, assumptions, and
conclusions. I've offered mine that conforms to many of their points.
If you have your own, you must survive by the same strictures. Given
the specific contention, I am especially intrigued in how you would
answer why the current departed the wire, and where it goes in light
of a potential map created by the phase shifts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Ok, I understand that. Your answers to the two questions I asked are
that you don't know and you don't know. In the absence of any evidence,
I'll continue to disbelieve there's a circumferential component of the
current.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy, it seems to me everyone has missed an important point concerning a circumferential component of the
current.

We know that the current flowing on the radial wires is radial in direction. What seems to be missed is the
current that returns to earth between the wire radials. That current is going to flow in the direction of the
lowest resistance. As such it's not going to flow radially alongside the currents flowing on the wire, because
the radial resistance of earth between the radial wires is much greater than the resistance of the wires.
Consequently, currents reaching earth between the wires will find a lower resistance by traveling toward the
nearest radial wire instead of continuing in a perfectly radial direction. This new direction of current flow
will not necessarily perfectly circumferential, but will certainly be somewhere between radial and
circumferential.

Walt, W2DU