On Nov 1, 4:28*pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
Art, once upon a time, a long time ago, I first heard the word, or concept,
called "skin effect".
I don't think you are alo0ne there.


It seems that somehow, current at RF tends to stay near
the surface of the conductor, going less deep into the conductor as frequency
rises.
I don't know why you say somehow. Only the surface of a radiator
radiates and the opposing force to the time varying current
known as eddy current changes its depth of penetration with frequency


In fact, at frequencies we 'unwashed' hams use routinely, the current
hardly penetrates the conductor at all.
Again quit true



Consequently, if the conductor is the
radiating element of an antenna, and it is a solid, there is no way the current
can enter the center of the conductor and travel through the mass of the
conductor.

The only thing stopping the fliow of current is the eddy current. The
eddy current
is not present when current flows thru the center of a conductor, nor
is there
radiation from the center of the conductor and the copper resistance
of the center
is certainly less than the provided current and skin resistance that
would occur
if the currfent behaved like salmon and fought it's way back
upstream.




I also heard a long time ago the word "reflection." Seems that many savants
discovered that when the current reaches the end of the radiator (conductor) it
sees an open circuit,
You are moving away from the subject at hand by not declaring what the
radiator is !
For instance there is no evidence that the provided current reverses
itself on a full
wave quad preferring instead to close the current circuit by returning
to the sourcewhich is what standard
physics teaches. There are two radiation circuits, a series and a
parallel circuit
both of which are continuous and closed circuits.


which the savants say causes the current to reverse its
direction and flow back along the "surface" of the conductor.
Ther may well be current disturbance on the outside of a radiator but
the
main current path is always the one of least resistance to complete a
closed circuit.

I also seem to
recall some of those savants say that the combination of the forward current and
the reflected current esstablishes what they call a 'standing wave.'
Well I recognise that there can be disturbances but none that are
powerfull enough to overpower the
main current applied to the radiator.

Art, are
you at all familiar with what I'm saying here?
Yes. You are trying to apply a foundation for a book


These savants have been able to
prove that a standing wave exists on the radiator by moving a fluorescent bulb
along the radiator for all to see.
I have never stated that a standing wave does not exist


So what I'm asking you to explain, Art, is how could this proven standing wave
exist on the radiator if the current reaching end of the radiator now goes into
the center of the radiator to propagate only through the mass of the conductor,
and seeing only the resistance of the conductor?

First of all the standing wave is a disturbance along the path of
current flow
but not so strong as it can overpower it's provider., physics would
never support such a notion.
I previously stated that radiation can only occur from the surface of
the radiator
since it is the eddy or Foucault current that can provide levitation
to resting particles. When current flows thru
a material center it only encounters copper losses as there is no eddy
current generated.


You've told us this happens, Art, but you haven't explained why. Now Art, please
explain this concept to all of us unwashed hams.

I have stated many times what is happening. I reject all notions that
the applied time varying current can be overcome
from its pursuit of returning to its source as it will always follow
the path of least resistance and wil, never generate
a negative force that destroys equilibrium or suggests that energy can
be create.

Frankly, your concentration on reflections with respect to radiation
is just a way to promote a book while at the same time
ignoring what provides communication which is the main issue with
respect to antennas. When you get down to the real
issue of what creats radiation you will find it much easier to
explain reflections instead of just trying to substantiate
possible answers to the frequent abnormalities of your position. I
challenge you to show that when the arbritary field enclosing a static
field
accompanied by the addition of a time varying field applied to said
enclosed field in equilibrium does not equal Maxwells laws.
If it does then the action of particles is a given with respect to
radiation and thus destroys your notions with respect to reflection.
Provide a service to ham radio, Show that the said addition to
gaussian law does NOT equate to Maxwells findings and thus the
present teachings are correct and my theorem is not.



Walt, W2DU
Best regards
Art Unwin