"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 2:26 pm, "JB" wrote:
OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a
radiator.
Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I
apologize
I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things
together.
When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing
laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator
then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in
the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent
of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another
try later
Regards
Art

Consider that there is little difference in the performance of a solid
radiator and hollow radiator.

There are things about Electromagnetic Radiation that aren't discussed by
Newton. Study classical antenna theory, then you will be on common ground
with others that study antennas. The danger of concentrating on your own
line of study so much is that you wind up out on a limb. I see this often
when dealing with different terminology spawned of different paradigms,
where similar circuits are redrawn and renamed by different engineering
teams. This is nowhere more evident in Psychology and Philosophy, where
insight springs from the conclusions derived from the limited experiences
of
an isolated group or individual. It is like the blind men describing an
elephant when they have only one part in front of them. They each call the
elephant something else based on their singular experience and arrive at
logical conclusions that are false. The fact that we only have one
lifetime
to devote to all the pieces is indeed a limitation.

Could well be but I have no alternative and am going my own way. Why
should this disturb others?
They could easily show me the error of my ways instead of taking up
the cause against change
We all know Newtons Laws ( some interprete in different ways) So we
have a radiator upon which a charge rests
there for ethere is no need for a opposing vector inside the radiator.
Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium and thus we have a
vector
which according to the laws of Newton or equilibrium or what ever
requires a responding vector inside the conductor. Inside the
conductor there is no magnetic field nor the Foucalt current thus it
is not radiating just spending copper losses. Put the apparatus in a
vacuum and the current will take a less resistive route by producing
an arc at the ends AWAY from the radiator. To me that sounds as
perfect logic but there is no book that states it or the presence of
the Foucalt current. That is not to say there are not a lot of
explanations all of which are different so I go back to first
principles and people get angry at the idea of change. Now the tide on
this post has turned around on Cecil. Let me warn you that Cecil has
outlasted this group several times to the tune of threads extending
more than a thousand more than a few times over the last 20 years. One
person who harasses him tries a lot of tactics on him including
pointing out that his only difference he has with a dog is lipstickl
but only the newbies respond to him unnowingly. Cecil will out last
them all.
Art Back to the mowing


--Well Art, there are some people out there that tend to boasting and jump
on any opportunity.

No, there is no arcing at the end of the elements. The ends of a center fed
dipole are a high impedance so there is high voltage there but as long as
there are clean decent insulators there should be no trouble with that. With
VERY HIGH power, ionization may take place and there will be a glow off the
ends. The cubical Quad antenna was developed to combat that problem. It
utilizes a full wave loop fed directly. Look also to the folded dipole.
Find out though that the current in the loop is the same in that there will
be a high voltage node at the points 1/4 wave away from the feedpoint even
though the wire goes continuously around and back. Certainly if you touched
it there, you would fry yourself by being a path to ground just as you would
with a classic dipole.

These things are known and proven, unlike the quantum physics tangent the
thread went off on. It is possible that Quantum Physics is all true. But it
is really just a construct to explain certain realities that aren't fully
explained with other theories. This should tell you that there is a better
explanation out there but we don't have all the pieces. It is certainly an
avenue of research. It could just as well be something else entirely
where all the questions are answered even better. Quantum physics isn't
needed to build antennas. Good luck in your studies. There is a lot of
misunderstanding about antennas. And you might have confusion about parts
that the writer considered evident. Concepts that I have found burdensome, I
tend to place into a box for later, more in-depth study and chose not to
trust them or myself with hard conclusions, especially if practical
experience won't support them.