On Sep 16, 2:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
I think your term for equilibrium is the term the exams use for
"resonant". An antenna with "equilibrium" is your name for an antenna
upon which a TEM standing wave is present with a standing wave ratio
of 1:1, correct? That would be your point of maximum effciency of
ejection of galactic particles from the end points of the antenna
which is optimized by sloping it relative to to the earth plane.

Some months ago, I made this exact mistake, made, almost, that
exact-same statement.

Although I did not leave with a complete and clear understanding of
"Arts' Equilibrium", I did leave with an understanding it was NOT
resonance ... so ???

Regards,
JS

Thank you
I am very pleased that you adressed the subject directly and you are
quite correct

resonace can be but not necessarily equate to equilibrium.
Don't go away JS help these people out when you can. I they do not
stay on subject there is no need for me to respond
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

...
resonace can be but not necessarily equate to equilibrium.
Don't go away JS help these people out when you can. I they do not
stay on subject there is no need for me to respond
Art

Well, I got that part "right" too (I think), as demonstrated by a 5/8
wave antenna, etc., they are NOT resonate but exist in the "confines" of
your equilibrium ... but Art, they will have to take their lessons from
"The Master", you! wink

Regards,
JS