|
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Rectifier wrote: It's not the light that bends the comet's tail. If the sun put out nothing except EM waves, what would a comet's tail look like? I suggest you read Eugene Hecht's section in "Optics" titled: "3.3.4 Radiation Pressure and Momentum" in my 4th edition. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com You cut off the first line of my post, "Do you know that the sun puts out a lot of neutrons and other particles?" I didn't say the sun puts out nothing except EM waves. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Jim Kelley wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Rectifier wrote: When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits wave properties. When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle properties. When does light travel at a speed other than the speed of light? From another of my postings: "If I remember correctly, a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of light." The first nine words in my first statement above are not mine but were copied verbatim from Rectifier's posting (except for the misspelled word). If there was an implication that light can travel at less than the speed of light, it didn't come from me. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Light travels at different speeds in different media, such as water, glass, etc. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 17, 2:26*pm, "JB" wrote:
OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a radiator. Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I apologize I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things together. When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another try later Regards Art Consider that there is little difference in the performance of a solid radiator and hollow radiator. There are things about Electromagnetic Radiation that aren't discussed by Newton. *Study classical antenna theory, then you will be on common ground with others that study antennas. *The danger of concentrating on your own line of study so much is that you wind up out on a limb. *I see this often when dealing with different terminology spawned of different paradigms, where similar circuits are redrawn and renamed by different engineering teams. *This is nowhere more evident in Psychology and Philosophy, where insight springs from the conclusions derived from the limited experiences of an isolated group or individual. *It is like the blind men describing an elephant when they have only one part in front of them. *They each call the elephant something else based on their singular experience and arrive at logical conclusions that are false. *The fact that we only have one lifetime to devote to all the pieces is indeed a limitation. Could well be but I have no alternative and am going my own way. Why should this disturb others? They could easily show me the error of my ways instead of taking up the cause against change We all know Newtons Laws ( some interprete in different ways) So we have a radiator upon which a charge rests there for ethere is no need for a opposing vector inside the radiator. Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium and thus we have a vector which according to the laws of Newton or equilibrium or what ever requires a responding vector inside the conductor. Inside the conductor there is no magnetic field nor the Foucalt current thus it is not radiating just spending copper losses. Put the apparatus in a vacuum and the current will take a less resistive route by producing an arc at the ends AWAY from the radiator. To me that sounds as perfect logic but there is no book that states it or the presence of the Foucalt current. That is not to say there are not a lot of explanations all of which are different so I go back to first principles and people get angry at the idea of change. Now the tide on this post has turned around on Cecil. Let me warn you that Cecil has outlasted this group several times to the tune of threads extending more than a thousand more than a few times over the last 20 years. One person who harasses him tries a lot of tactics on him including pointing out that his only difference he has with a dog is lipstickl but only the newbies respond to him unnowingly. Cecil will out last them all. Art Back to the mowing |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
In direct terms I have stated that current flows down the
center of a radiator if it is of a fractional wave length. A very simple statement which nobody wishes to address. Fine by me, the thread would then have a single posting and the multitude can generate questions and discussion about deep space or other topics of choice. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Rectifier wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message If the sun put out nothing except EM waves, what would a comet's tail look like? I suggest you read Eugene Hecht's section in "Optics" titled: "3.3.4 Radiation Pressure and Momentum" in my 4th edition. You cut off the first line of my post, "Do you know that the sun puts out a lot of neutrons and other particles?" I didn't say the sun puts out nothing except EM waves. I am asking you: What if the sun put out nothing except EM waves. Would comets still have a tail or not? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Rectifier wrote:
Light travels at different speeds in different media, such as water, glass, etc. It is still traveling at the speed of light in that medium. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
In direct terms I have stated that current flows down the
center of a radiator if it is of a fractional wave length. A very simple statement which nobody wishes to address. Fine by me, the thread would then have a single posting and the multitude can generate questions and discussion about deep space or other topics of choice. Severns, QEX, Nov/Dec 2000, pp 20-29 does address the issue. On page 22: "At some points within the wire, the instantaneous current is actually flowing backwards (minus signs) due to the self-induced eddy currents that are the underlying phenomena responsible for skin effect." These results were verified with Ansoft's "Maxwell" FEM software. An excellent treatment of the math can be found at: http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/comps/zint.html Frank |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
Art Unwin wrote:
snip In direct terms I have stated that current flows down the center of a radiator if it is of a fractional wave length. OK, you must be talking about an AC current as there is a wavelength involved. But if you are implying there is current in the center matching the amplitude of the current on the surface you are wrong. See this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_depth Note the phrase regarding current;"the magnitude of which is greatest at the conductor's surface". This is where the current is. There is also this statement "the current can be flowing in the opposite direction to that at the surface." Note that there are qualifications on that statement (on the page referenced). So, while there can be some current flowing inside the conductor, it does not say it is a matching current in the other direction. By saying most of the current is at the surface, it conflicts with your statement. A very simple statement which nobody wishes to address. You are trying to apply "For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions." (from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion" ) You make a simple statement, brought about but applying a concept incorrectly. I don't think Newton said anything about electricity and flow in conductors. Newton's law doesn't say what the opposing force is, so I don't think you can say it is anything specific. snip I would prefer however the discussion to at least start with equilibrium which leads to why or why not it is correct that current can flow thru the center of a conductor the answer of which is not in the books. The right books would tell you that AC current does not flow in the center of a conductor. As others have stated, you need to clearly define what _you_ mean by equilibrium. Some people prefer to read the last page of the book first. I prefere to examine foundations before determining the merits of a house. Those foundations need to take into account all the considerations, not just the ones you know or want to talk about. You may have read some of the book, but you skipped quite a few chapters. Regards Art Consider your statement to have been addressed. You will note that both links include some math. This is something you don't provide with your explanations. If you went through the rigor to work out the math and present it to the group with sufficient clarity you might get someone to believe you. If you want someone to believe you, it is up to you to effectively communicate your ideas. It is hard to tell if you have a useful concept regarding antennas, are completely lost, or just a troll. But, just in case you have something, then... Many antennas are built using tubing for light weight. So, if there is a current flowing in the middle, it is good that the ends of the tubes are crimped, or plugged. I wouldn't want the flowing electrons spilling out onto my lawn. |
Equilibrium and Ham examinations
On Sep 17, 6:11*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: snip In direct terms I have stated that current flows down the center of a radiator if it is of a fractional wave length. OK, you must be talking about an AC current as there is a wavelength involved. But if you are implying there is current in the center matching the amplitude of the current on the surface you are wrong. See this linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_depth Note the phrase regarding current;"the magnitude of which is greatest at the conductor's surface". This is where the current is. There is also this statement "the current can be flowing in the opposite direction to that at the surface." Note that there are qualifications on that statement (on the page referenced). So, while there can be some current flowing inside the conductor, it does not say it is a matching current in the other direction. By saying most of the current is at the surface, it conflicts with your statement. A very simple statement which nobody wishes to address. You are trying to apply "For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions." (from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion" ) You make a simple statement, brought about but applying a concept incorrectly. I don't think Newton said anything about electricity and flow in conductors. Newton's law doesn't say what the opposing force is, so I don't think you can say it is anything specific. snip I would prefer however the discussion to at least start with equilibrium which leads to why or why not it is correct that current can flow thru the center of a conductor the answer of which is not in the books. The right books would tell you that AC current does not flow in the center of a conductor. As others have stated, you need to clearly define what _you_ mean by equilibrium. Some people prefer to read the last page of the book first. I prefere to examine foundations before determining the merits of a house. Those foundations need to take into account all the considerations, not just the ones you know or want to talk about. You may have read some of the book, but you skipped quite a few chapters. Regards Art Consider your statement to have been addressed. You will note that both links include some math. This is something you don't provide with your explanations. If you went through the rigor to work out the math and present it to the group with sufficient clarity you might get someone to believe you. If you want someone to believe you, it is up to you to effectively communicate your ideas. It is hard to tell if you have a useful concept regarding antennas, are completely lost, or just a troll. But, just in case you have something, then... Many antennas are built using tubing for light weight. So, if there is a current flowing in the middle, it is good that the ends of the tubes are crimped, or plugged. I wouldn't want the flowing electrons spilling out onto my lawn. Ok Joe I will go along with everything you said Thank you for your comments Arft |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com