On Sep 17, 10:07*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:43:22 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Frankly my present knoweledge is very limited.

Then learn. *Antenna design and modeling is not easy. *Just
understanding Maxwell's Equations is enough to keep you busy for a few
months. *Antenna modeling (I suggest using 4NEC2) will keep you busy
for another few months. *Trying to reconcile theory, models, and
reality will burn a few more months. *However, when you're done, you
will understand something about antennas and how they work.
http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/

Personally, I judge people by their willingness and ability to learn.
That's what distinguished modern technological humans from a inanimate
rock.

I had a heart attack, 5 bypasses plus a loss in memory.

In 2002, I just barely missed having a heart attack. *I nearly passed
out during the treadmill test. *I celebrated the event with a triple
bypass, which effectively rolled back my biological clock about 10
years. *Best thing I ever did. *No memory loss except from the
anaesthetics used during surgery. *Incidentally, I'm now 60.8 years
old. *Kinda sounds like you also had a stroke. *You're lucky to be
alive. *My father had a stroke in 1986 and did not do very well
afterwards.

So that I could
continue to live I chose radiation as a niche
study for recovery.

Fine, but I question the methods you call "study". *It's considered
good form to gather your evidence first, and then supply your
conclusions, not the reverse order.

Of course I will never recover fully.

Neither will I. *I'm still collecting medical problems. *Man was meant
to live for about 25 years. *Anything beyond that is a free ride. *

So basically
I have tunnel vision built around the niche of radiation and antennas
where I went back to first principles and started with Newton
This process has lasted for several years, very slow progress but I
have got to a point that my thoughts on antennas and radiation is so
different from the books that I have to go back to the beginning with
respect tp Newton and re evaluate with my peers.

Radio and antennas are built of physics. *However, it's not Newtonian
physics, but electrodynamics as in Maxwell's Equations. *Have you
studied those? *They're quite different from Newton's equations, which
a sometimes called "classical mechanics". *(Note: *It's not easy. Just
decoding the notation is a major challenge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Yes I am seen as an
idiot, very understandable but I am persistent in talking and
discussing the initial point in radiation .

You make an attempt at understanding. *An idiot doesn't even try.

From Newtons laws I deduce
that current flow on a fractional wavelength antenna includes current
flow thru the centre of a radiator.

Which of Newton's laws? *What equations or thought experiment resulted
in this deduction? *How do you reconcile your conclusion with the
common assumption that RF current flows on the outside of a conductor?

I am going right back to my new
beginnings but the books do not say that!

For good reason. *You're wrong and your unspecified books are correct.

So I can't participate in
the many diversions from the niche I have taken and thus ask for a
similar focus from others.

Yes you can. *You can take it one step at a time. *No need to jump
directly from Newton to skin effect. *Just walk me through your logic.

No sympathy or crying desired as I am
comfortable and living a good life but even with tunnel vision I am
determined to continue and participate in the route I have chosen as
there is no alternative.

By contrast, I'm willing to throw out everything I have learned and
presume to be correct, if any of it can be proven or demonstrated
wrong. *I hold absolutely nothing (except my bank balance) as sacred,
and consider everything subject to suspicion and debate. *If you are
permanently attached to your pet theory, you effectively refuse to
accept input or criticism. *Therefore, you have stopped learning and
are starting to resemble the previously mentioned inanimate rock.

For example, did you know that the direction one counts causes the
final count to vary? *A simple example is counting the number of
fingers on both hands. *Start from one end counting 1,2,3,4,5,6... and
ending in 10, which appears to be the correct count. *Yet counting
fingers downward results in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, plus 5 more makes 11.
Surprise, you have 11 fingers. *Like I said, nothing is sacred.

Sooooo after more than a thousand posts based on the initial radiator
and equilibrium I have been unable to make one step forward in a re
evaluation of my journey. But I will never give up so you will have to
live with that. All of this is old hat to most of the posters who give
me hell and sometimes I respond in kind to new posters in a like
manner which is wrong but it happens. So to sum up I am a simple man
with tunnel vision in a single subject and no where as knoweledgable
as other posters outside my field of choice.

Suit yourself. *As you make your bed, so shall you sleep in it.
Repetition of incorrect gibberish only works in politics, not in
science and technology.

My very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Good luck. *Let me know when you produce some logic, equations, or
numbers.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

It has been placedon this newsgroup a couple of times or more over the
years and I will try to find
it. If I can't then I will write it up again the best way I can which
all have difficulty with.
I thank you very very much for your most genourous offer and Frank if
you want a copy we can do that to
Regards
Art