Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Dave wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 6, 1:28 pm, art wrote:

David, I am like an ever ready battery, I keep going and going until I
can educate all about how radiation occurs in a scientific fashion to
those who are not educated.
Unless debate points out errors that can be substantiated
I will go on and on and on and....
Art Unwin....KB9MZ....xg (uk)
"Educating" people using copious amounts of bafflegab has been
proven by Underwriters Laboratory to be a hazard to carbon life forms
of all types. You should cease and desist from this illogical behavior
says Dr. Spock. Captain Kirk seems to be in full agreement.
I asked Dr. McCoy about this, and he said, "Oh hell, it's too much
of that Vulcan Ale he's been drinking". Scotty had no comment,
but only scratched his head in disgust, and starting mumbling
something
about dilithium crystals never being in a true state of equilibrium,
even under the strict care and supervision of Dr. McCoy.
As a final comment, Captain Kirk said, well, there you have it then,
bafflgab is never in a true state of equilibrium. Even on the
Enterprise.
MK


live long and prosper.

me thinks that art is a bit out of equilibrium... but its fun to try and
tweak him into contradicting himself, which he does frequently.



Which, of course, doesn't say anything about Art, but does speak
volumes about you.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Jan 6, 2:29 pm, "Dave" wrote:


live long and prosper.

me thinks that art is a bit out of equilibrium... but its fun to try and
tweak him into contradicting himself, which he does frequently.

He doesn't have to be tweaked. He seems to grab at every straw
that is within reach.
Oh, and it's not like I hang around just to tweak Art..
And I'm surely no expert at electromagnetic theory
compared to many here.
But on the other hand, I don't spew out bafflegab on a weekly
basis either though, and then try to claim said "theory" as fact.
And that I am an expert, and everyone else is surely brain dead
if they don't except said bafflegab as gospel.
Art does this though. This is why it's hard to resist tweaking
him every once in a while. :/

He may well be on to some new exotic theory to set all mankind
on it's tail, but if he can't describe it without using bafflegab,
no one will ever be able to tell what he is talking about.
Myself, I'm not holding my breath... I don't believe in free
lunches.

Dr. Spock was a famous human pediatrician. Although perhaps not an
expert on logic, he did write volumes about how to deal with children.
So his advice is entirely appropriate in this situation, probably even
more so than from the Mr. Spock of Star Trek.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Humm, I was thinking Mr. Spock was a "doctor" too, but maybe he
wasn't.. He might as well have been vs the rest of the crew... :/

MK

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Aet wrote:
"WHY? beCAUSE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES FROM A DIAMAGNETIC MATERIAL SUCH
AS ALUMINUM OR COPPER IS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE AXIS OF CURRENT FLOW
WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS WITH A FERRITE MAGNETIC MATERIAL.

My experience with broadcast towers is that it matters not if a steel
tower is painted or zinc coated it works the same.

Terman`s 1955 opus says on page 21:
"When a current is flowing through such a conductor (he makes no
distinction between iron or copper, but does describe an isolated round
wire), the magnetic flux that results is in the form of concentric
circles, as shown in Fig. 2-9. It is to be noted that some of the flux
exists within the conductor and therefore links with , i.e.,encircles,
current near the center of the conductor while not linking with current
flowing near the surface. The result is that the inductance of the
central part of the conductor is greater than the inductance of the part
of the conductor near the surface; this is because of the greater number
of flux linkages existing in the central region."

Terman is describing "skin effect".

"Right hand rule" definitions also say magnetic flux encircles the
current carrying conductor. Art`s assertion is "off the wall".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On 6 Jan, 12:29, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Jan 6, 1:28 pm, art wrote:

David, I am like an ever ready battery, I keep going and going until I
can educate all about how radiation occurs in a scientific fashion to
those who are not educated.
Unless debate points out *errors that can be substantiated
I will go on and on and on and....
Art Unwin....KB9MZ....xg (uk)

"Educating" people using copious amounts of bafflegab has been
proven by Underwriters Laboratory to be a hazard to carbon life forms
of all types. You should cease and desist from this illogical behavior
says Dr. Spock. Captain Kirk seems to be in full agreement.
I asked Dr. McCoy about this, and he said, "Oh hell, it's too much
of that Vulcan Ale he's been drinking". *Scotty had no comment,
but only scratched his head in disgust, and starting mumbling
something
about dilithium crystals never being in a true state of equilibrium,
even under the strict care and supervision of Dr. McCoy.
As a final comment, Captain Kirk said, well, there you have it then,
bafflgab is never in a true state of equilibrium. Even on the
Enterprise.
MK

live long and prosper.

me thinks that art is a bit out of equilibrium... but its fun to try and
tweak him into contradicting himself, which he does frequently.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Probably so. But pseudo experts such as Roy and Tom and the three
Richards can't put o neck hold on the advances of science for ever,
for people like MK to follow in lockstep in the absence of knoweledge.
As for you Dave you can never move forward while resisting the notion
that the addition of a time varient field to Gaussian law of Statics
becomes the same as Maxwell's law. Without understanding the
relationships of laws with the state of equilibrium you will never
exceed beyond the learning level of your professor, only their equal.
Because of learning by rote without understanding of the first
principles of science all of which revolve around the lynch pin of
equilibrium. But you are not alone. All of the so called experts on
this newsgroup are guilty of the same thing
hanging on to the writings of Terman and other oldies while ignoring
or resisting the movement of science during the last half century.
But then today,s interests of hams is talking and handwaving and not
the intricacies of modern science with respect to radiation.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG (uk)

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Art wrote:
"Tom and the three Richards can`t put a neck hold on the advance of
science forever."

Permanent magnets are collections of current loops, so it is supposed
thet the earth`s magnetism is caused by currents in the earth. Its poles
approach alignment with the earth`s axis of rotation.

Solar storms are seen to affect the earth`s magnetism and evidence
exists that poles have reversed over the eons of history. The most
recent reversal came about 2.5 million years ago.

"College Physics" by Frank Miller, Jr. is the source of the above.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On 6 Jan, 14:14, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Aet wrote:

"WHY? beCAUSE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES FROM A DIAMAGNETIC MATERIAL SUCH
AS ALUMINUM OR COPPER IS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE AXIS OF CURRENT FLOW
WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS WITH A FERRITE MAGNETIC MATERIAL.

My experience with broadcast towers is that it matters not if a steel
tower is painted or zinc coated it works the same.

Terman`s 1955 opus says on page 21:
"When a current is flowing through such a conductor (he makes no
distinction between iron or copper, but does describe an isolated round
wire), the magnetic flux that results is in the form of concentric
circles, as shown in Fig. 2-9. It is to be noted that some of the flux
exists within the conductor and therefore links with , i.e.,encircles,
current near the center of the conductor while not linking with current
flowing near the surface. The result is that the inductance of the
central part of the conductor is greater than the inductance of the part
of the conductor near the surface; this is because of the greater number
of flux linkages existing in the central region."

Terman is describing "skin effect".

"Right hand rule" definitions also say magnetic flux encircles the
current carrying conductor. Art`s assertion is "off the wall".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI *

No. It is keeping up to date. Terman died before all these things
become known and basically you are also dead when you cannot move
forward with the times. Go to google and look up diamagnetic materials
and diamagnetic fields. While you are at it check out the rotation of
a pendulum and how its curls are explained. While you are at it
explain why a radiator being parallel to the earth does not produce as
much horizontal gain as a tipped antenna.I dare you to come back and
explain what you discovered.
You can't hold back father time or the advance of science by holding
on to old books. Methinks you are better staying with ficticious waves
that bounce into each other with the other instant experts.
Art

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

art wrote:

WHY? bECAUSE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES FROM A DIAMAGNETIC MATERIAL
SUCGH AS ALUMINUM OR COPPER IS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE AXIS OF CURRENT
FLOW WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS WITH A FERRITE MAGNETIC MATERIAL



Does it matter that aluminum and copper are paramagnetic rather than
diamagnetic? Perhaps you should consider a bismuth antenna. That is the
poster child for diamagnetic metals.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On 6 Jan, 17:10, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
WHY? bECAUSE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES FROM A DIAMAGNETIC MATERIAL
SUCGH AS ALUMINUM OR COPPER IS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE AXIS OF CURRENT
FLOW WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS WITH A FERRITE MAGNETIC MATERIAL

Does it matter that aluminum and copper are paramagnetic rather than
diamagnetic? Perhaps you should consider a bismuth antenna. That is the
poster child for diamagnetic metals.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Yes, bismuth would be the ideal material. On the other hand my
understanding is aluminum, copper,water, gold and the like are
diamagnetic materials. I am basing that on the magnetic susceptability
values and the like to make that distinction.Where are you drawing the
line with respect to diamagnetic and paramagnetic? The idea of using a
ingredient that could smother an already weak paramagnetic field seams
to thwart the actions that I am refering to.
Regards
Art

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

art wrote:

Probably so. But pseudo experts such as Roy and Tom and the three
Richards can't put o neck hold on the advances of science for ever,
for people like MK to follow in lockstep in the absence of knoweledge.


Crikeys, Art!

How on earth are your nemeses strangling science? Does anyone in here
take these bar room brawls seriously?

I mean just what would this strangulation achieve? Does IEEE keep an
archive of rraa? the National Science Foundation?

These arguments, For all their sound and fury, signify nothing.


I rather thought that they boys were all just feeling their oats. At any
rate, the great unwashed such as myself find it all amusing.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -