On Sep 17, 12:24*pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 3:39 pm, "Wayne" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....I
consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas No where do I see
antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to
ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this
is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams
on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it
like a plague?
Art

-
My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen
equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you,
in
this newsgroup. Do you have any references to papers that have been peer
reviewed and published?

Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get
you something to read
but difficult if you are starting from Zero.

-
-
I'm not starting from zero, but it has been a number of years since I did
theoretical analysis.

When I google "equilibrium" and then start trying to filter the responses
down to things that are potentially "on topic", the references lead back to
you on this newsgroup.

The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I
I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is
wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be
nfired
which goes for some of the people at *University of Illinois in the
electrical engineering area.

-
I'm not saying that you are wrong. *But your claims would hve much more
credibility if they were explained somewhere in addition to r.r.a.a.

.EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys
that or does not respond to that Law
i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if
to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any
engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender
looking for a date with any poster.
Art

Wayn everybody wants me to answer their questions and not address mine
so they took over the thread
So to clear the air I started at the very beginning a radiator in
equilibrium and what it presents to me.
It has nothing to do with any of the sciences presented by the
posters. 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. Ofcourse I
am not knowledable in those areas and I would stand aside. 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. Some
people prefer to read the last page of the book first.
I prefere to examine foundations before determining the merits of a
house.
Regards
Art

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.

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

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.

On Sep 16, 4:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 3:39*pm, "Wayne" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...Iconsi der it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas No where do I see
antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to
ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this
is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams
on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it
like a plague?
Art

-
My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen
equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you, in
this newsgroup. *Do you have any references to papers that have been peer
reviewed and published?

Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get
you something to read
but difficult if you are starting from Zero. The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I
I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is
wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be
nfired
which goes for some of the people at *University of Illinois in the
electrical engineering area.
EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys
that or does not respond to that Law
i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if
to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any
Wayne
engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a
pretender
looking for a date with any poster.
Art
Wayn e I stated that I started at the point of first principles which
is Newton and I went from there.
There is not a book that I know that starts there. You want a lst of
authors that physics examiners look for to determine
what"famous " people will side with him if he accepts it. That lesson
is not lost on all that aspire to heights in the academic world
so a paper MUST be buillt on the works of others whose work has been
accepted. In my case I start at a point where the shoulders that I
stand aupon are all dead. I made reference to Newton only and I havent
got a list of supporters. So I start at the beginning with just one
name in consideration to isolate the point of possible error. The ARRL
infers the circuit is the capacitance to ground where as I put the
cuircuit as going thru the center of the conductor.
I dont see the need to bring in quantum physics or to speculate about
photons or massless items or how many gears that they can race thru to
obtain
the speed of light. I was not an electrical engineer and I am not
wired like Richard as I have a wife and I am a great grandpa and no
wish to be any part of his world. My subject is and will always be
until in someway I am satisfied is what is the electrical circuit of a
fractional wavelength antenna which is not specifically stated in the
books and where every poster is waiting for somnebody else to dip his
toe in the water and thus avoid any subsequent
verbal thrashing. I can never point to a list of supporting evidence
beyond Newton and his laws.
Best regards.....I have to cut an acre of grass with a hand mower as
my daily excercise yes I do have a tractor but that is not excercise
Art

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas

A very simple observation:

Give us one question you would expect to see.

Give us the answer that would be marked as passing.

Without both, this sappy sentiment of yours is nothing more than a
late night exercise of crying bitter tears into the pillow - and
leaving the window open so the neighbors can hear the sobs of regret.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:33:04 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas

A very simple observation:

Give us one question you would expect to see.

Give us the answer that would be marked as passing.

Without both, this sappy sentiment of yours is nothing more than a
late night exercise of crying bitter tears into the pillow - and
leaving the window open so the neighbors can hear the sobs of regret.

It appears that sentimentality rules the thread. Lacking any steps
taken by Art towards providing a question with its corresponding
answer must mean he couldn't pass the same test it might be placed in.

Barring Art's hesitancy to supply his own solution, I can only rummage
up a similar instance from him where we might make this a quality of
test a CBer might tackle that is drawn from patented (5,625,367)
technology:

Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly
higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly
lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Thankfully, the PTO does not test nor issue licenses based upon this
technology source used as reference material.

I can well imagine how "equilibrium" would similarly pollute the
question pool and the lack of follow-up leaves us with the soap opera
it was always meant to be.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:52:40 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:33:04 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas

A very simple observation:

Give us one question you would expect to see.

Give us the answer that would be marked as passing.

Without both, this sappy sentiment of yours is nothing more than a
late night exercise of crying bitter tears into the pillow - and
leaving the window open so the neighbors can hear the sobs of regret.

It appears that sentimentality rules the thread. Lacking any steps
taken by Art towards providing a question with its corresponding
answer must mean he couldn't pass the same test it might be placed in.

Barring Art's hesitancy to supply his own solution, I can only rummage
up a similar instance from him where we might make this a quality of
test a CBer might tackle that is drawn from patented (5,625,367)
technology:

Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly
higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly
lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Thankfully, the PTO does not test nor issue licenses based upon this
technology source used as reference material.

I can well imagine how "equilibrium" would similarly pollute the
question pool and the lack of follow-up leaves us with the soap opera
it was always meant to be.

It is painfully obvious that Art will never offer the questions only
he can sign off on. The other Newtonian Philosopherz are equally
flummoxed.

As for others following this tempest in a teapot, Art has already
answered the two TRUE/FALSE questions above:

Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly
higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE!

Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly
lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE!

and thus fulfills my observation he couldn't pass a test he Authured.

Gad, the irony is thick and gooey sweet.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC