View Single Post
  #55   Report Post  
Old January 9th 09, 12:26 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Dave Dave is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 797
Default Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?


"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 11:32 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"For a fractional wave antenna, skin depth or resistance on the surface
does not disappear until the trailing edge of the RF pulse reaches rhe
antenna top."

Assume an open-circuited whip antenna fed with RF. The leading edge of
the first current cycle reaching the antenna tip can continue forward no
farther as it abruptly has run out of conducting parh. It must reverse
directions on the surface of the conductor as it has no where else to
go.

This reversed current is called the reflected current. The reflection is
nearly 100%. I forward plus I reflected add to zero at the open circuit
because they are about equal in magnitude and opposite in phase, caused
by travel in opposite directions.

E forward plus E reflected add to X2 as they are in-phase and of the
same magnitude at the open circuit.

Skin-effect causes both currents, forward and reflected, to ride the
surface of the conductor.

Atenna RF current encounters more inductance in a onductor`s center than
on its surface because there are magnetic force lines inside the
conductor as well as outside encircling its current. Lines inside the
wire only encircle the current beneath them. The exact center of the
wire is encircled by all magnetic lines of force inside and on the
surface of the conductor. It therefore poses the most opposition to RF
current. It is encircled by lines of magnetic force from currents at all
depths in and on a conductor. So, the deeper the current, the more
opposition from inductive reactance to its flow, and that`s the way it
is.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


By golly As I stated before you are correct in your own mind
and I have no intention of changing your attitude as you age.
I acknowledge that we differ in our descriptions but until you provide
scientific proof as opposed to your personal opinion it will continue
to remain that way
regardless.
From now on because of our differences I see no need to respond to
your quotes
Nothing personal intended.
Best regards and farewell
Art
Art


ain't it great. show him facts and he calls them your opinions and ignores
them... yet question his opinions and you are an old fuddy duddy stuck on
the books that have been good for 100 years.