On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 18, 7:02*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
...where as, your expertise in mathematics can test
the logic to its limits which defy opposition

I am having a go at this before I read the questions!!!!

A go at what? That was your statement that I quoted.

1. *If current flows along the inside of a wire, and not on the
outside, how does the field radiate through the alleged non-conducting
outer part of the wires? *The radiation would be trapped inside the
conductor, only to perhaps emerge at end

Due to the length of your extended sentences, I have to edit them in
sections to extract individual concepts.

a length of radiator which is a fractional wavelenth will have
charges in motion on the outside

I thought you said that fractional wavelength antennas have maximum
current on the inside of the conductor. (I'm lazy and don't want to
search for the specific quote). Please decide if it's inside or
outside.

creating radiation
the rest of the charge length will be inside the radiator where a
magnetic field cannot be created and particles if they were present
cannot pierce the eddy current on the surface.

Particles? Where do I get a bottle of RF?

Eddy currents only occur when there is an opposing magnetic field
restricting the flow of electrons. You might have such a problem in a
transformer design, but nobody designs match boxes, xformers, and
antennas that way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current

RF current flows on the outside of a conductor whether it's shorter or
longer than one wavelength long. Show me a formula where there's a
break point at 1 wavelength.

For radiation at all
times the radiator must be a wavelength or multiple thereof or a
period of the frequency in use for radiation to not disappear from the
surface where the levitating force is present to eject particles

Particles? Where do I get a bottle of RF?

My 80 meter antenna is considerably shorter than one wavelength. No
loading coils but a suitable match box. Are you telling me that my
antenna does not radiate?

2. *If current flow along the inside of a wire, then it would seem
that increasing the effective diameter of the conductor would have no
effect on its impedance. *Measurements of the Q of large diameter
conductors versus small diameter conductors have show that impedance
goes down with an increase in wire diameter.

the increase in diameter does not affect conditions that are
exposed to air
thus the progression of skin depth is the same.

My antennas are not affected by air. The dielectric constant of air
and a vacuum are sufficiently close to be considered identical. How
does the Q or impedance of an antenna change when exposed to air?

Thus copper losses on
the inside circuit
will be reduced as well as lost radiation resistance in the circuit.

What inside circuit? Do you mean the inside of the conductor?
Radiation resistance is increased or decreased, not lost. It's not a
quantity that can be bottled or sold.

I
previously stated that
copper losses on the inside of a fractional wavelength antenna must be
considered separately from the groundplain resistance
which is required i.e. they are two separate resistances in series.

Why must they be considered separately? My radiation resistance
calculations are the vector sum of the antenna impedance and any
resistive losses that present in the conductors. The radiation
resistance is not a resistance that can be added. It's an impedance
that has a phase angle that must be added as a vector.

3. *How does a cage antenna work? *The effective diameter is huge, but
there's a giant hole in the middle, through which no current is
conducted. *If most of the RF current flowed through the center, and
there is no center, then a cage antenna can't work.

I am not familiar with a cage antenna but from the above description
is
that it is transformed into a Farady cage

Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_antenna
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/05/03/2/
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=144503 (see drawing)
It's usually an HF dipole with insulating spreaders at each end. One
wire per spreader. This creates an effective wire diameter equal to
the spreader diameter without the necessity of using a huge piece of
tubing. The large effective conductor diameter increases the
operating bandwidth of the antenna. No effect on the gain or pattern.

No, I don't mean an elephant cage antenna:
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/an-flr-9.htm
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fbbs.keyhole.com%2Fubb%2Fdownload .php%3FNumber%3D112921&t=k&om=1&ie=UTF8&ll=61.2645 8,-149.847829&spn=0.00654,0.01914&z=16
I want one...

I can conjur a few more rhetorical questions, but these should be
sufficient to illustrate the problem. *Your antenna current
distribution model does not fit very well with tested reality.

Hmm why not?

Because I don't have infinite amounts of time to continue doing this.
I supplied 3 examples of common measurements and constructs that do
not fit into your model of current being maximum at the center of a
conductor. That will have to suffice for now, or at least until I
need some more entertainment.

Got any more prediction? *I need the target practice.

Yes
Earlier I pointed to the fact that eddy current can be neutralised
such that particles canot be ejected from the surface

That's fine. Now, how do I measure those eddy currents? How are they
calculated? What affects their value. Where do I get a bottle of RF
particles?

Indeependent testing showed there was nothing to prevent particles
from settling on a diamagnetic substance thereby inducing
an oscillation .

An antenna by itself cannot oscillate (except maybe in the wind). If
particles "settled" on the antenna, its weight would increase. How
much?

Are you familiar with the definition of diamagnetic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
Copper is non-magnetic. None of my antennas levitate themselves.
Diamagnetism will not create oscillations.

At the same time on the transmitting side the
particles were still present on the diamagnetic surface because the
ejection force
was neutralised thus preventing ejection otherwise seen as
transmission.

Huh? What ejection force. If there were an ejecting or levitation
force on a copper antenna, it would be measurable. How?

Another one
The computor on the first example disapointed me as I expected a
higher gain (stated on this net)

Here we agree. Measured gain always seems to be less than calculated
gain. That's due to the myriad of minor factors left out of the
calculations.

When I corrected the nullification of
the foucault current by separation the computor program gave the gain

Separation from what? Foucault current is exactly the same as eddy
current. Since your separate computer program generated numbers,
could I trouble you for the results? Incidentally, eddy currents are
always losses, not gains.

I initiall expected in gun shot form which migrates in a way to a
lazer ray which is oif a similar science
thus HF does not necessarily have to diverge such that gain is
nullified.

Brain overload. Cannot compute. Error....error....error... imminent
meltdown predicted.... abort... abort... pfffffffzt!

If you want more target to aim at listen for the BIG BANG and then aim
at the resulting BLACK HOLE

Too late. My brain just collapsed into a black hole and will soon go
super nova.

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