On 23 Dec, 23:13, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"It has been said that certain particles, known as free electrons/static
particles, will settle on a diamagnetic material where as other
materials will reject them."

Electrostatic precipitation and magnetic deflection are familiar
phenomena. Beyond interference and beam deflection, they have little to
do with signal radiation and propagation. Radiation simply happens when
a certain RF current flows along the surface of an isolated conductor
and the resulting fields get too far away to be recalled by the source.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Great. At last we have somebody familier with this particular
phenomina
who can specifically describe why such a phenomina has NOTHING to
do with RADIATION. Richard please share with us all your deep
knoweledge
on the subject, possibly starting with the reason why diamagnetic
materials are the material of choice for radiators and if possible
references of such in a book of the modern era.. You might also
want to diverge into what makes up what is called "skin depth"
and if it consists of the same when paramagnetic are used as
radiators.
You might also comment on why the chemeical makeup of such a skin
appeares to have a constituent of 'HO' compared to the normal paired
combination of 'H20' .Could you also comment on what creats the
vibrational attributes of a radiator and how it propagates
communication means thousands of miles by deflection from
shells around the earth and in other cases pierce these same shells.
In defience of gravity no less.
To say with such confidence that electrical precipitation and
magnetic deflection has NOTHING to do with radiation implies the
suggestion that you are equal to the masters of the past and
just waiting for the chance to add to science in the new millinium.
So Richard, here is your chance to expouse on radiation together with
quoting from different books in science in a point by point fashion
to supply credability to the discussion.
Side note, I will accept any chapter from Terman, Feynman, Einstein,
Planck e.t.c.if they specifically address the points raised above
as long as what they wrote is not altered to what you think they meant
as you have done in the past.
First, start with the difference between diamagnetic and paramagnetic
materials and why one is more favorable for antennas than the other.
It is very simple but it does force one to get involved with the
facts regarding radiation especially with respect to free electrons
as opposed to bonded electrons because there is a big difference here
that appears to be overlooked
Regards
Art