"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
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


--Well Art, there are some people out there that tend to boasting and jump
on any opportunity.

No, there is no arcing at the end of the elements. The ends of a center fed
dipole are a high impedance so there is high voltage there but as long as
there are clean decent insulators there should be no trouble with that. With
VERY HIGH power, ionization may take place and there will be a glow off the
ends. The cubical Quad antenna was developed to combat that problem. It
utilizes a full wave loop fed directly. Look also to the folded dipole.
Find out though that the current in the loop is the same in that there will
be a high voltage node at the points 1/4 wave away from the feedpoint even
though the wire goes continuously around and back. Certainly if you touched
it there, you would fry yourself by being a path to ground just as you would
with a classic dipole.

These things are known and proven, unlike the quantum physics tangent the
thread went off on. It is possible that Quantum Physics is all true. But it
is really just a construct to explain certain realities that aren't fully
explained with other theories. This should tell you that there is a better
explanation out there but we don't have all the pieces. It is certainly an
avenue of research. It could just as well be something else entirely
where all the questions are answered even better. Quantum physics isn't
needed to build antennas. Good luck in your studies. There is a lot of
misunderstanding about antennas. And you might have confusion about parts
that the writer considered evident. Concepts that I have found burdensome, I
tend to place into a box for later, more in-depth study and chose not to
trust them or myself with hard conclusions, especially if practical
experience won't support them.

John Smith wrote:
... "they" do travel MUCH slower than the speed of light ...

When traveling through a medium other than a vacuum
they do travel MUCH slower than the speed of light
*in a vacuum* but they travel at exactly the speed
of light *in the medium*, i.e. the photons don't
know that they have slowed down. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
What about Cerenkov radiation?

Up until now, I haven't said anything about particles
other than photons - but what about neutrinos which
cannot catch photons in free space but overtake and
pass photons when they hit the water? Or, unlike
most photons, usually pass through the entire earth
without hitting anything.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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

Are you talking about the ion tail or the dust tail? The dust tail is
affected by EM; but the ion tail is affected only by magnetic forces.

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/tail.html

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

That's the convention I use for exponents.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Try again...would you believe light as 38 miles per hour?

38 miles per hour is the speed of light in that medium
but not in a vacuum.

Quiz: How fast do the electrons flow in a copper conductor?
Hint: It's not the speed of light.

Of course not, compared to photons, electrons are massive,
capable of absorbing photons with ease.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:52 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
snip
Art
If you do the differential equations, it doesn't say why the center
can't so much as why the skin does. Similar to gravitation and water
flowing downhill vs uphill. I'll go into detail if you can't figure it
out. Or not.

tom
K0TAR

Please do. I would love to see your take on it. I am gratified that
somebody is tackling the problem
hopefully in laymans language so all can benefit. Possibly you could
start another thread as this one is greatly contaminated
I can then respond on my take of the matter and hopefully the flaw
will be exposed.
Regards
Art

I did not mean to imply I would explain the diff eqs. That would
currently be a lost cause on you, because I am sure that I couldn't put
it in "layman's terms" - you need the math to understand it. I meant
that I would explain why the 2 situations were similar, or not explain,
depending upon my mood.

To understand the situation, I would suggest that you start down the
calculus road. The internet has to have tutorials on it. Differential
equations look terribly obtuse, but they are an obtainable destination
down that road if you choose to follow it.

tom
K0TAR

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

That's the convention I use for exponents.

Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham
radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some
70 cm off the cloud.

"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

The word was not misspelled. According to dictionary.com, which quotes the
American Heritage Dictionary, "traveling" and "travelling" are both accepted
ways of spelling the word.

Also, I never meant to assert that light can travel at less than the speed
of light. I took modern physics in college and understand the concepts of
relativity, although it's been 20 years; so I may get some terminology wrong
or not be able to explain it as well as I could before. However,
discussions like these are interesting and stimulate thought and a desire to
go back and review the subject.

Rectifier wrote:
I am asking you: What if the sun put out nothing except
EM waves. Would comets still have a tail or not?

Are you talking about the ion tail or the dust tail? The dust tail is
affected by EM; but the ion tail is affected only by magnetic forces.

So a large part of the visible tail of the comet would
still point away from the sun even if the sun emitted
nothing but EM waves. EM waves possess momentum, apply
radiation pressure to dust particles (matter), and have
relativistic mass.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com