On Sep 17, 8:48*pm, "Frank" wrote:
I read that last one Frank but I think it is aimed at computer geeks
which I am not.
Pleased to see eddy currents are the underlying phenomina responsible
for skin depth
presumably he explains how the secondary current can overcome that
which creats it.
At last we have a source for free energy
Regards
Art

Not sure if you got the correct site Art, since there should be nothing
concerning computers at:http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/comps/zint.html.
Also the excellent references at:http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/comps/refs.html
Note that the central current in the conductor is significantly less than
than the surface current. *Solution of the Kelvin functions should
be easy with Mathcad, or similar, providing only the first few
terms of the series are considered. *Direct computation of
these modified Bessel functions is limited to the latest versions of
Mathcad,
since the earlier versions cannot handle complex arguments.
A more rigorous treatment can be found at the following:http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KelvinF...m.com/Ber.html
Where, even with Mathcad 7, using the 20, or so, first terms of the series
expansions, I have gotten good agreement with the published curves.
Mathcad certainly does not like the upper limits of the series to
be infinity. Probably even Excel could handle it.

73,

Frank

Thanks for your effots Frank I would appreciate your presence when Tom
discusses it
as I suspect that both of you overshadow my expertise on the matter
Regards
Art

I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
Somebody said the current flow backwards now that is hard to
understand unles he is refering to a tank circuit
where the antenna has capacitance at one end and inductance at the
other and the current goes nowhere.
I think I will sit back and see what the experts say and if the IEEE
has accepted al these explanations.

As mentioned before; in particular reference [9a] of:
http://www.g3ynh.info:80/zdocs/comps/refs.html
Ramo, et. al was published in 1965. The methods of computation
for cylindrical conductors has been known for some time.

One thing I particularly have difficulty with is that the secondary
current can overcome the primary current

Note the central current flow is significantly less than
the surface current.

where the power flows back to a wall plug or something like that.
Another infers that current travel in a aluminum tube is different to
the flow of a solid conductor presumably with double the surface area
you have double the amount of radiation.

As in a charged sphere the net internal field is zero.

The next publication from the
ARRL is going to rock the science world with these findings on
radiation. Funny thing is that based on my findings I designed an
antenna which computer program AO Pro
determined was quite good, an arrangement that is if the program
doesn;'t follow the teachings of the books should I then throw the
program away?

I am not familiar with AO Pro, but usually NEC based programs
will compute an average gain test, which helps determine the
validity of the model. Pushing the limits of the program concerning
conductor proximity, length to diameter ratio, etc. can produce
erroneous results.

NEC4 models the antenna that is in equilibrium also isn't that a
bummer?

NEC 4, and 2, for that matter, use a "Thin wire approximation" which
assumes current only exists at the surface of the wire, has only axial
components, and the surface current is uniform around the wire.

If only somebody would come up with a vector diagram of a
radiator that was NOT in equilibrium
I could locate my fault very
quickly.

I am not sure what you mean by a "Vector diagram".

Still if all of what has been described will be published in
the ARRL and IEEE papers I can afford to wait.
Thank you all
Art

Frank

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:43:22 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Frankly my present knoweledge is very limited.

Then learn. Antenna design and modeling is not easy. Just
understanding Maxwell's Equations is enough to keep you busy for a few
months. Antenna modeling (I suggest using 4NEC2) will keep you busy
for another few months. Trying to reconcile theory, models, and
reality will burn a few more months. However, when you're done, you
will understand something about antennas and how they work.
http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/

Personally, I judge people by their willingness and ability to learn.
That's what distinguished modern technological humans from a inanimate
rock.

I had a heart attack, 5 bypasses plus a loss in memory.

In 2002, I just barely missed having a heart attack. I nearly passed
out during the treadmill test. I celebrated the event with a triple
bypass, which effectively rolled back my biological clock about 10
years. Best thing I ever did. No memory loss except from the
anaesthetics used during surgery. Incidentally, I'm now 60.8 years
old. Kinda sounds like you also had a stroke. You're lucky to be
alive. My father had a stroke in 1986 and did not do very well
afterwards.

So that I could
continue to live I chose radiation as a niche
study for recovery.

Fine, but I question the methods you call "study". It's considered
good form to gather your evidence first, and then supply your
conclusions, not the reverse order.

Of course I will never recover fully.

Neither will I. I'm still collecting medical problems. Man was meant
to live for about 25 years. Anything beyond that is a free ride.

So basically
I have tunnel vision built around the niche of radiation and antennas
where I went back to first principles and started with Newton
This process has lasted for several years, very slow progress but I
have got to a point that my thoughts on antennas and radiation is so
different from the books that I have to go back to the beginning with
respect tp Newton and re evaluate with my peers.

Radio and antennas are built of physics. However, it's not Newtonian
physics, but electrodynamics as in Maxwell's Equations. Have you
studied those? They're quite different from Newton's equations, which
a sometimes called "classical mechanics". (Note: It's not easy. Just
decoding the notation is a major challenge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Yes I am seen as an
idiot, very understandable but I am persistent in talking and
discussing the initial point in radiation .

You make an attempt at understanding. An idiot doesn't even try.

From Newtons laws I deduce
that current flow on a fractional wavelength antenna includes current
flow thru the centre of a radiator.

Which of Newton's laws? What equations or thought experiment resulted
in this deduction? How do you reconcile your conclusion with the
common assumption that RF current flows on the outside of a conductor?

I am going right back to my new
beginnings but the books do not say that!

For good reason. You're wrong and your unspecified books are correct.

So I can't participate in
the many diversions from the niche I have taken and thus ask for a
similar focus from others.

Yes you can. You can take it one step at a time. No need to jump
directly from Newton to skin effect. Just walk me through your logic.

No sympathy or crying desired as I am
comfortable and living a good life but even with tunnel vision I am
determined to continue and participate in the route I have chosen as
there is no alternative.

By contrast, I'm willing to throw out everything I have learned and
presume to be correct, if any of it can be proven or demonstrated
wrong. I hold absolutely nothing (except my bank balance) as sacred,
and consider everything subject to suspicion and debate. If you are
permanently attached to your pet theory, you effectively refuse to
accept input or criticism. Therefore, you have stopped learning and
are starting to resemble the previously mentioned inanimate rock.

For example, did you know that the direction one counts causes the
final count to vary? A simple example is counting the number of
fingers on both hands. Start from one end counting 1,2,3,4,5,6... and
ending in 10, which appears to be the correct count. Yet counting
fingers downward results in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, plus 5 more makes 11.
Surprise, you have 11 fingers. Like I said, nothing is sacred.

Sooooo after more than a thousand posts based on the initial radiator
and equilibrium I have been unable to make one step forward in a re
evaluation of my journey. But I will never give up so you will have to
live with that. All of this is old hat to most of the posters who give
me hell and sometimes I respond in kind to new posters in a like
manner which is wrong but it happens. So to sum up I am a simple man
with tunnel vision in a single subject and no where as knoweledgable
as other posters outside my field of choice.

Suit yourself. As you make your bed, so shall you sleep in it.
Repetition of incorrect gibberish only works in politics, not in
science and technology.

My very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Good luck. Let me know when you produce some logic, equations, or
numbers.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:52:40 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

wrote:
Are you proposing that a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of
light in a vacuum, or it cannot travel slower than the speed of light
in water or the speed of light through glass or air?

In any random medium, a photon cannot travel slower
than the speed of light through that medium. In
particular, photons associated with standing waves
do NOT stand still.

Try again...would you believe light as 38 miles per hour?
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
or at near absolute zero, coming to a complete stop?
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/15-11/st_alphageek
or used in optoelectronics?
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-145405.html
or even faster then 3*10^8 meters/sec?
http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html


Quiz: How fast do the electrons flow in a copper conductor?
Hint: It's not the speed of light.
Cheat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sep 17, 9:41*pm, "Frank" wrote:
I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
Somebody said the current flow backwards now that is hard to
understand unles he is refering to a tank circuit
where the antenna has capacitance at one end and inductance at the
other and the current goes nowhere.
I think I will sit back and see what the experts say and if the IEEE
has accepted al these explanations.

As mentioned before; in particular reference [9a] of:http://www.g3ynh.info:80/zdocs/comps/refs.html
Ramo, et. al was published in 1965. *The methods of computation
for cylindrical conductors has been known for some time.

One thing I particularly have difficulty with is that the secondary
current can overcome the primary current

Note the central current flow is significantly less than
the surface current.

where the power flows back to a wall plug or something like that.
Another infers that current travel in a aluminum tube is different to
the flow of a solid conductor presumably with double the surface area
you have double the amount of radiation.

As in a charged sphere the net internal field is zero.

The next publication from the
ARRL is going to rock the science world with these findings on
radiation. Funny thing is that based on my findings I designed an
antenna which computer program AO Pro
determined was quite good, an arrangement that is *if the program
doesn;'t follow the teachings of the books should I then throw the
program away?

I am not familiar with AO Pro, but usually NEC based programs
will compute an average gain test, which helps determine the
validity of the model. *Pushing the limits of the program concerning
conductor proximity, length to diameter ratio, etc. can produce
erroneous results.

NEC4 models the antenna that is in equilibrium also isn't that a
bummer?

NEC 4, and 2, for that matter, *use a "Thin wire approximation" which
assumes current only exists at the surface of the wire, has only axial
components, and the surface current is uniform around the wire.

If only somebody would come up with a vector diagram of a
radiator that was NOT in equilibrium
I could locate my fault very
quickly.

I am not sure what you mean by a "Vector diagram".

Still if all of what has been described will be published in
the ARRL and IEEE papers I can afford to wait.
Thank you all
Art

Frank

A vector diagram that shows a charge at rest on the surface of a
radiator which shows that there is no opposing vector at the center.
Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium. In that case i
would place a vector on the surface and another vector at the center.
Thus charges are in motion both on the outside and the inside of the
radiator.I base this on the reasoning that the inner resistance is
less
than 377 where an arc is produced at the ends. the idea that the
leading edge of current flow will reverse at the radiator ends and
oppose the trailing current is just beyond my thinking as you do not
have a closed circuit. I have not seen an illustration that shows
current that reverses upon itself in a open circuit.
Regards
Art

On Sep 17, 5:56*pm, "Frank" wrote:
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.

I did not research your reason for making the statement. However,
there is a commonly accepted derivation of a skin effect calculation
that makes frequency inversely proportional to skin depth. There is
nothing about the fraction of the wavelength that occupies the
conductor length. Can you provide a technical cite? Thanks.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?

Sure they do. Look under "skin effect".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect
The components of the fields generated by AC conduction tend to repell
each other, causing them to drift towards the points of maximum
seperation, which is the outside of the conductor.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sep 17, 6:16*pm, "Frank" wrote:
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

What is the frequency of the currents flowing backwards? If the same
as forward current (which it would be), then that and a few other
attributes such as conductor size, resistivity and mu, I can give you
skin depth by simple subtraction of the forward/reverse current
vectors. However, it will not necessarily indicate indicate that some/
no current flows in the center....it depends on the above variables.
At lower frequencies, a certain proportion of the current distribution
may occupy the center if the conductor is thin enough.

On Sep 17, 10:07*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:43:22 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Frankly my present knoweledge is very limited.

Then learn. *Antenna design and modeling is not easy. *Just
understanding Maxwell's Equations is enough to keep you busy for a few
months. *Antenna modeling (I suggest using 4NEC2) will keep you busy
for another few months. *Trying to reconcile theory, models, and
reality will burn a few more months. *However, when you're done, you
will understand something about antennas and how they work.
http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/

Personally, I judge people by their willingness and ability to learn.
That's what distinguished modern technological humans from a inanimate
rock.

I had a heart attack, 5 bypasses plus a loss in memory.

In 2002, I just barely missed having a heart attack. *I nearly passed
out during the treadmill test. *I celebrated the event with a triple
bypass, which effectively rolled back my biological clock about 10
years. *Best thing I ever did. *No memory loss except from the
anaesthetics used during surgery. *Incidentally, I'm now 60.8 years
old. *Kinda sounds like you also had a stroke. *You're lucky to be
alive. *My father had a stroke in 1986 and did not do very well
afterwards.

So that I could
continue to live I chose radiation as a niche
study for recovery.

Fine, but I question the methods you call "study". *It's considered
good form to gather your evidence first, and then supply your
conclusions, not the reverse order.

Of course I will never recover fully.

Neither will I. *I'm still collecting medical problems. *Man was meant
to live for about 25 years. *Anything beyond that is a free ride. *

So basically
I have tunnel vision built around the niche of radiation and antennas
where I went back to first principles and started with Newton
This process has lasted for several years, very slow progress but I
have got to a point that my thoughts on antennas and radiation is so
different from the books that I have to go back to the beginning with
respect tp Newton and re evaluate with my peers.

Radio and antennas are built of physics. *However, it's not Newtonian
physics, but electrodynamics as in Maxwell's Equations. *Have you
studied those? *They're quite different from Newton's equations, which
a sometimes called "classical mechanics". *(Note: *It's not easy. Just
decoding the notation is a major challenge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Yes I am seen as an
idiot, very understandable but I am persistent in talking and
discussing the initial point in radiation .

You make an attempt at understanding. *An idiot doesn't even try.

From Newtons laws I deduce
that current flow on a fractional wavelength antenna includes current
flow thru the centre of a radiator.

Which of Newton's laws? *What equations or thought experiment resulted
in this deduction? *How do you reconcile your conclusion with the
common assumption that RF current flows on the outside of a conductor?

I am going right back to my new
beginnings but the books do not say that!

For good reason. *You're wrong and your unspecified books are correct.

So I can't participate in
the many diversions from the niche I have taken and thus ask for a
similar focus from others.

Yes you can. *You can take it one step at a time. *No need to jump
directly from Newton to skin effect. *Just walk me through your logic.

No sympathy or crying desired as I am
comfortable and living a good life but even with tunnel vision I am
determined to continue and participate in the route I have chosen as
there is no alternative.

By contrast, I'm willing to throw out everything I have learned and
presume to be correct, if any of it can be proven or demonstrated
wrong. *I hold absolutely nothing (except my bank balance) as sacred,
and consider everything subject to suspicion and debate. *If you are
permanently attached to your pet theory, you effectively refuse to
accept input or criticism. *Therefore, you have stopped learning and
are starting to resemble the previously mentioned inanimate rock.

For example, did you know that the direction one counts causes the
final count to vary? *A simple example is counting the number of
fingers on both hands. *Start from one end counting 1,2,3,4,5,6... and
ending in 10, which appears to be the correct count. *Yet counting
fingers downward results in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, plus 5 more makes 11.
Surprise, you have 11 fingers. *Like I said, nothing is sacred.

Sooooo after more than a thousand posts based on the initial radiator
and equilibrium I have been unable to make one step forward in a re
evaluation of my journey. But I will never give up so you will have to
live with that. All of this is old hat to most of the posters who give
me hell and sometimes I respond in kind to new posters in a like
manner which is wrong but it happens. So to sum up I am a simple man
with tunnel vision in a single subject and no where as knoweledgable
as other posters outside my field of choice.

Suit yourself. *As you make your bed, so shall you sleep in it.
Repetition of incorrect gibberish only works in politics, not in
science and technology.

My very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Good luck. *Let me know when you produce some logic, equations, or
numbers.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

It has been placedon this newsgroup a couple of times or more over the
years and I will try to find
it. If I can't then I will write it up again the best way I can which
all have difficulty with.
I thank you very very much for your most genourous offer and Frank if
you want a copy we can do that to
Regards
Art

On Sep 17, 10:40*pm, wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:16*pm, "Frank" wrote:



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

What is the frequency of the currents flowing backwards? If the same
as forward current (which it would be), then that and a few other
attributes such as conductor size, resistivity and mu, I can give you
skin depth by simple subtraction of the forward/reverse current
vectors. However, it will not necessarily indicate indicate that some/
no current flows in the center....it depends on the above variables.
At lower frequencies, a certain proportion of the current distribution
may occupy the center if the conductor is thin enough.

No Im not going that direction. Visulise a salvage yard that use
magnetic
fields on a conveyor which produces a collision of magnetic fields
which
levitates artucles made of aluminum such that it falls in a selected
container
the ejection being created by the foucault or eddy current.
Now look at that same conveyor belt as a antenna or radiator upon
which particles are at rest.I easily can visualise
the same action as a replica of a antenna with particles at rest since
Gaussian law of statics when extended equals maxwells law
Thus equilibrium and the presence of particles I take as a given. Also
by viewing the Gaussian field one can determine that a radiator
can be any size shape or elevation as long as the arrangement in
equilibrium. This points away from planar designs as well as the final
arrangement must not posses external lumped loads as maxwell provides
no place for them. In a way I am working backwards that render the
eddy force as the weak force
of the four forces of the standard model. Placing a verticle antenna
in a computor program without leaning it to a planar design and the
resulting radiator
shows the angle and magnitude of the "weak" force according to
Maxwells laws upon which the program is founded. This weak force is
thus appearing as the pitch of a helix antenna which confirmes the
reasoning against straight planar antennas. As far as how the static
particle obtained its own magnetic field I assume that exposure to the
earths magnetic field left a residue of thst immersion which is the
other field on the conveyor belt. Since the ejection of the partical
must be of a straight line projection the combination of the two
magnetic fields will provide that spin and where the reaction to the
ejection creates a vivration on the radiator as with the human ear
bone with the reverse acting on the receiving antenna. The particle
chose diamagnetic material to rest upon because as an free electron it
will not be absorbed in the matrix of other materials. Now that is in
laymans language based upon the salvage actions in use today as well
as non destructive material measurements which appear to be a
duplicate of the antenna function. Yes it is a woven dialogue but it
does duplicate functions in use that are not theoretical and for me
matches perfectly. I don't see how I can explain my thoughts any
better to avoid
the implication that it is all blabber since to me it explaind
radiation in detail where it does not appear as a mystery.
unfortunately hams will not follow in detail my reasoningas emotion
rules their responses and where they then introduce other areas of
science that was not present in the initial reasoning
and thus make me an easy mark for derision. So stick with my reasoning
and break it apart piece by piece scientifically to show my resoning
produces
an impossibility. I might add that nobody accepts that the addition of
a radiator and a time varying field produces a dynamic field which
mathematically
reflects Maxwells laws which if they are correct tears my reasoning
apart . I know it is very hard to follow and leaving many places to
laugh at.
I also placed a helix antenna in euilibrium and without external
lumped loads which produces a pattern of gun shot form whigch again I
expected with a gain of around 10dbi. Go figure
Art