Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 11:23*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
On Sep 18, 7:02*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
...where as, your expertise in mathematics can test
the logic to its limits which defy opposition

I am having a go at this before I read the questions!!!!

A go at what? *That was your statement that I quoted.

1. *If current flows along the inside of a wire, and not on the
outside, how does the field radiate through the alleged non-conducting
outer part of the wires? *The radiation would be trapped inside the
conductor, only to perhaps emerge at end

Due to the length of your extended sentences, I have to edit them in
sections to extract individual concepts.

a length of radiator which is a fractional wavelenth will have
charges in motion on the outside

I thought you said that fractional wavelength antennas have maximum
current on the inside of the conductor. *(I'm lazy and don't want to
search for the specific quote). *Please decide if it's inside or
outside.

creating radiation
the rest of the charge length will be inside the radiator where a
magnetic field cannot be created and particles if they were present
cannot pierce the eddy current on the surface.

Particles? *Where do I get a bottle of RF?

Eddy currents only occur when there is an opposing magnetic field
restricting the flow of electrons. *You might have such a problem in a
transformer design, but nobody designs match boxes, xformers, and
antennas that way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current

RF current flows on the outside of a conductor whether it's shorter or
longer than one wavelength long. *Show me a formula where there's a
break point at 1 wavelength.

For radiation at all
times the radiator must be a wavelength or multiple thereof or a
period of the frequency in use for radiation to not disappear from the
surface where the levitating force is present to eject particles

Particles? *Where do I get a bottle of RF?

My 80 meter antenna is considerably shorter than one wavelength. *No
loading coils but a suitable match box. *Are you telling me that my
antenna does not radiate?

2. *If current flow along the inside of a wire, then it would seem
that increasing the effective diameter of the conductor would have no
effect on its impedance. *Measurements of the Q of large diameter
conductors versus small diameter conductors have show that impedance
goes down with an increase in wire diameter.
the increase in diameter does not affect conditions *that are
exposed to air
thus the progression of skin depth is the same.

My antennas are not affected by air. *The dielectric constant of air
and a vacuum are sufficiently close to be considered identical. *How
does the Q or impedance of an antenna change when exposed to air?

Thus copper losses on
the inside circuit
will be reduced as well as lost radiation resistance in the circuit.

What inside circuit? *Do you mean the inside of the conductor?
Radiation resistance is increased or decreased, not lost. *It's not a
quantity that can be bottled or sold.

I
previously stated that
copper losses on the inside of a fractional wavelength antenna must be
considered separately from the groundplain resistance
which is required i.e. they are two separate resistances in series.

Why must they be considered separately? *My radiation resistance
calculations are the vector sum of the antenna impedance and any
resistive losses that present in the conductors. *The radiation
resistance is not a resistance that can be added. *It's an impedance
that has a phase angle that must be added as a vector.

3. *How does a cage antenna work? *The effective diameter is huge, but
there's a giant hole in the middle, through which no current is
conducted. *If most of the RF current flowed through the center, and
there is no center, then a cage antenna can't work.

I am not familiar with a cage antenna but from the above description
is
that it is transformed into a Farady cage

Nope. *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_antenna
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/05/03/2/
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=144503 (see drawing)
It's usually an HF dipole with insulating spreaders at each end. *One
wire per spreader. *This creates an effective wire diameter equal to
the spreader diameter without the necessity of using a huge piece of
tubing. *The large effective conductor diameter increases the
operating bandwidth of the antenna. *No effect on the gain or pattern.

No, I don't mean an elephant cage antenna:
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/an-flr-9.htm
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fbbs.keyhole.com%2Fubb%2Fdown....
I want one...

I can conjur a few more rhetorical questions, but these should be
sufficient to illustrate the problem. *Your antenna current
distribution model does not fit very well with tested reality.
Hmm why not?

Because I don't have infinite amounts of time to continue doing this.
I supplied 3 examples of common measurements and constructs that do
not fit into your model of current being maximum at the center of a
conductor. *That will have to suffice for now, or at least until I
need some more entertainment.

Got any more prediction? *I need the target practice.
Yes
Earlier I pointed to the fact that eddy current can be neutralised
such that particles canot be ejected from the surface

That's fine. *Now, how do I measure those eddy currents? *How are they
calculated? *What affects their value. *Where do I get a bottle of RF
particles?

Indeependent testing showed there was nothing to prevent particles
from settling on a diamagnetic substance thereby inducing
an oscillation .

An antenna by itself cannot oscillate (except maybe in the wind). *If
particles "settled" on the antenna, its weight would increase. *How
much?

Are you familiar with the definition of diamagnetic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
Copper is non-magnetic. *None of my antennas levitate themselves.
Diamagnetism will not create oscillations.

At the same time on the transmitting side the
particles were still present on the diamagnetic surface because the
ejection force
was neutralised thus preventing ejection otherwise seen as
transmission.

Huh? *What ejection force. *If there were an ejecting or levitation
force on a copper antenna, it would be measurable. *How? *

Another one
The computor on the first example disapointed me as I expected a
higher gain (stated on this net)

Here we agree. *Measured gain always seems to be less than calculated
gain. *That's due to the myriad of minor factors left out of the
calculations.

When I corrected the nullification of
the foucault current by separation the computor program gave the gain

Separation from what? *Foucault current is exactly the same as eddy
current. *Since your separate computer program generated numbers,
could I trouble you for the results? *Incidentally, eddy currents are
always losses, not gains.

I initiall expected in gun shot form which migrates in a way to a
lazer ray which is oif a similar science
thus HF does not necessarily have to diverge such that gain is
nullified.

Brain overload. *Cannot compute. *Error....error....error... imminent
meltdown predicted.... abort... abort... pfffffffzt!

If you want more target to aim at listen for the BIG BANG and then aim
at the resulting BLACK HOLE

Too late. *My brain just collapsed into a black hole and will soon go
super nova.

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

So I made a mistake with you
I can move on
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 19, 12:17*am, "Frank" wrote:
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

Art, I am totally confused. *I don't understand what you are
trying to say. *Can you explain what you mean by the term
"Vector"? *For something to be called a vector it must meet
a number of precise mathematical criteria. *Note the
"Formal definition" at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space

73, *Frank

A vetor diagram in my mind evolves around Newtons laws
All forces (vectors) forces when summed must equal zero.
Whether their is a triange or a polygon of forces it always leaves a
gap
whuch thus provides a vector required to make he arrangement equal
zero
and in a state of equilibrium. The masters always followed this
aproach to determine if equilibrium
was present by vectorizing all the forces known within a arbitrary
border. They always came up with
an unclosed vector arrangement even tho it met the requirements of
equilibrium. So all filled in the gap
o arrive at the starting point and labelled this unknown vector that
they were forced to provide as the weak force required for equilibrium
to satisfy Newtons law.
Regards
Art

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

So I made a mistake with you

Jeff, from Hero to Zero in 211 posts. It was funny the first time,
now its boring and Art still can't originate a single question with
its answer to prepare an examination that contains "equilibrium."

This is all one very elaborate Troll.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:45:13 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

So I made a mistake with you

Jeff, from Hero to Zero in 211 posts. It was funny the first time,
now its boring and Art still can't originate a single question with
its answer to prepare an examination that contains "equilibrium."

Yep. That's what I get for trying to be helpful, an ever increasing
and more elaborate word salad of technobabble. My contributions
certainly didn't help. Now I know how Victor Frankenstein felt when
he intended to create life, and ended up instead creating a monster.

This is all one very elaborate Troll.

Yeah, but I'm still jealous. I can't juggle technical terms as well
as Art has demonstrated.

It didn't take much effort to see how the smooth transition between
multiple topics was implemented. No sentence has a single subject or
action. By splicing two disconnected subjects or actions into a
single sentence, each sentence can seamlessly transition from one
topic to another. The next sentence picks up the 2nd subject from the
previous sentence, and then adds a 3rd subject, ad infinitum. That
has the benefit of it being very difficult to refute or even discuss
two subject simultaneously, without first surgically dissecting each
sentence into at least two parts. I attempted to do that in my
previous posting, with only marginal effectiveness.

I think I now have enough material to effectively study the technique.
It should be quite useful for writing business plans, patent
applications, and research reports. I would like to thank Art for the
material and apologize to the other readers for becoming part of the
problem.



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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote:
I think I now have enough material to effectively study the technique.
It should be quite useful for writing business plans, patent
applications, and research reports. I would like to thank Art for the
material and apologize to the other readers for becoming part of the
problem.

Jeff:
I wonder what the bafflegab would be like if Art had an IEEE
dictionary!!!!!


Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 18, 1:40*pm, Jeff Liebermann

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. *Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. *With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

I could go along with that. Let them use amateur power amps as well;
at least that would legalize their power amp hardware. Also, I think
CBers do have something to contribute in the construction of some of
those antennas those guys use; some are trash but others are fairly
imaginative at maximizing output power at that frequency. Also those
cheap Galaxy amps. Ise use one myself when I put 10m in my car.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

A vetor diagram in my mind evolves around Newtons laws
All forces (vectors) forces when summed must equal zero.
Whether their is a triange or a polygon of forces it always leaves a
gap
whuch thus provides a vector required to make he arrangement equal
zero
and in a state of equilibrium. The masters always followed this
aproach to determine if equilibrium
was present by vectorizing all the forces known within a arbitrary
border. They always came up with
an unclosed vector arrangement even tho it met the requirements of
equilibrium. So all filled in the gap
o arrive at the starting point and labelled this unknown vector that
they were forced to provide as the weak force required for equilibrium
to satisfy Newtons law.
Regards
Art

I think you are confusing the "Weak force", resposible for "Beta decay"
in radio-active materials. The following web site explains the work
of Enrico Fermi in this area:
http://atomic-molecular-optical-phys...the_weak_force
While it is not unreasonable to consider Newtonian mechanics in
an explanation of what hapens within a conductor, there is no
missing force involved.

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Another prediction
Particles are known to collect in bunches where the bunch contains
three basic electrons
bound together by the force of colour which is known to be very strong
Ofcourse not all
of the particles bunch together as previously stated. When the color
bound bunch of electrons
come into contact with a strong magnetic field, the strongest being at
the poles the electons are torn apart releasing
the binding energy in a aurora that spreads for thousands of miles. In
the case of a lazer on can imagine that that same particle
is similar to others but with the vestiges of color and we know that
the energy emmitted dose not fan out giving strength to my antenna
which also
gravitate to a non spreading relation ship.
And it goes on and on and..
Art

WTF?

tom
K0TAR

Tom

It's somewhat like this I think:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80462773187994

73, ac6xg

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Another prediction
Particles are known to collect in bunches where the bunch contains
three basic electrons
bound together by the force of colour which is known to be very strong
Ofcourse not all
of the particles bunch together as previously stated. When the color
bound bunch of electrons
come into contact with a strong magnetic field, the strongest being at
the poles the electons are torn apart releasing
the binding energy in a aurora that spreads for thousands of miles. In
the case of a lazer on can imagine that that same particle
is similar to others but with the vestiges of color and we know that
the energy emmitted dose not fan out giving strength to my antenna
which also
gravitate to a non spreading relation ship.
And it goes on and on and..
Art

WTF?

tom
K0TAR