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
 

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.
--
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.

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

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.

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.
One thing I particularly have difficulty with is that the secondary
current can overcome the primary 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. 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?
NEC4 models the antenna that is in equilibrium also isn't that a
bummer? 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. 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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Where is motion?

Velocity = c

Where is time?

Time stands still for anything traveling at
velocity = c

Yeah, well, if you take a cubic centimeter of "energy" around yourself,
of even myself, for that matter, it better be at rest! Otherwise, the
motion/time thing, which your simplistic equation ignores, will, MOST
CERTAINLY, come into play ...

However, the equation you gave is good ... but just NOT that simple for
REAL world situations ... but then, I stated that, before you gave the
equation ...

You have argued this yourself, most vehemently, with photons ... think
about it ... an argument I actually agreed with, and echo here ...
motion DOES change things, a bit ... and, it is VERY DIFFICULT to keey
energized particles at rest, but then, not impossible ;-)

Regards,
JS

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 17, 5:16*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

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Sep 17, 5:52*pm, 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.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

What about Cerenkov radiation? In this case, beta particles with mass
travel faster than light in a water medium. So much for 'nothing can
travel faster than a photon'. It depends on the medium. If the medium
is a vacuum, then yes, nothing can travel faster than the speed of
light in that medium. Need to be careful. I have to Credit R. Clark
for pointinmg this out some time ago. See http://nuclear.mst.edu/research/reactor.html

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

Rectifier wrote:

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.

And yet all are the speed of light. In that media. What's your issue
with that?

tom
K0TAR

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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/KelvinFunctions.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bei.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:09:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 17, 3:25*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
wrote:

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
* mr = relativistic mass
* mo = mass at rest
* v *= velocity of particle
* c *= speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - 0.813)^0.5 = 1/ (0.187)^0.5 = 1/ 0.432 = 2.31

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 2.3 times
that of the particle at rest. *It doesn't matter what particle. *Maybe
a silver star?

Not correct. It's not quite as simple as e = m*c**2. You must use the
Lorentz transformation.

I didn't use e = m * c^2

Using the same values you have assiged to c and v, the correct
equation would be:

mr = mo/SQRT(1 - v**2/c**2)

That's exactly the same equation I used but with different notation.
It's still the square root:
SQRT(whatever) = (whatever)^0.5

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.

I also divided both sides of the equation by mo to get the ratio of
relativistic mass to the at rest mass.

As v = c, mr must = infinity (therefore no mass can reach c)

Yep.
Go FTL (faster than light), and you get a cosmic speeding ticket.


--
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
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

"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.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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.

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

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.

Equilibrium and Ham examinations
 

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