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. 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
engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender
looking for a date with any poster.
Art

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

Newtons laws are not in error. But your application of them is in error.
You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to electromagnetic
radiation, which has no mass.

engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender
looking for a date with any poster.

I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is an
ABET certified engineering program.

Rectifier wrote:
You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to
electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass.

Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel
at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed
of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you
get such irrational ideas?

I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is
an ABET certified engineering program.

After your latest posting, they may de-certify your university's
program. Exactly what university was it that taught you that
photons traveling at the speed of light have zero mass?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 16, 4:32*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Rectifier wrote:
You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to
electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass.

Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel
at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed
of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you
get such irrational ideas?

I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is
an ABET certified engineering program.

After your latest posting, they may de-certify your university's
program. Exactly what university was it that taught you that
photons traveling at the speed of light have zero mass?
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling
your leg with his nonsence
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling
your leg with his nonsence
Art

What, this is not the "Pulling Your Leg Festival?"

Damn, it appears I have caught the wrong door again! Last time this
happened, it was a womens restroom, at walmart, no less :-( -- at least
this is less embarrassing ... grin

I have found this news group to be a usable answer to the question,
"What would happen if you accidentally entered the door to an
old-peoples/rest-home/psychiatric-institution instead of the forum for
the college lecture you were supposed to be at and in attendance?

Hey, it works for me ... another-straight-face-yet

Regards,
JS

What, this is not the "Pulling Your Leg Festival?"

Damn, it appears I have caught the wrong door again! Last time this
happened, it was a womens restroom, at walmart, no less :-( -- at least
this is less embarrassing ... grin

ROFLOL
I did that at a technical seminar in a hotel once. I was pondering the
ramifications of the training and didn't even look at the door. It wasn't
until the only woman there rushed in (probably preoccupied as well) and
plopped down and peed that it dawned on me that there was something very
very wrong!

In any case, Art seems to have trouble articulating and I have completely
lost touch with any sense he might have made somewhere in the great pile of
this thread.

I get that even though a resonant dipole can be treated as if it were a
lumped constant at times, it really isn't that. Do electrons fly back and
forth down the pole and induce a magnetic field? Without flying off the
ends? Yes but that is hard to make sense of because there should be no
current flow in an open wire. A loop element maybe, but the resonant loop
has the same current as the center fed dipole. Perhaps looking at the
re-entrant cavity makes more sense.

JB wrote:

...
ROFLOL
I did that at a technical seminar in a hotel once. I was pondering the
ramifications of the training and didn't even look at the door. It wasn't
until the only woman there rushed in (probably preoccupied as well) and
plopped down and peed that it dawned on me that there was something very
very wrong!


Thanks, I needed that ... always wondered if I was "the only one?" LOL

In any case, Art seems to have trouble articulating and I have completely
lost touch with any sense he might have made somewhere in the great pile of
this thread.


Ahhh, Art is Art, he does provide good exercise in thinking ... IMHO ...

I get that even though a resonant dipole can be treated as if it were a
lumped constant at times, it really isn't that. Do electrons fly back and
forth down the pole and induce a magnetic field? Without flying off the
ends? Yes but that is hard to make sense of because there should be no
current flow in an open wire. A loop element maybe, but the resonant loop
has the same current as the center fed dipole. Perhaps looking at the
re-entrant cavity makes more sense.


Now see, there ya' go, ya' got me wonderin' again ... yet-another
straight-face :-|

Warm regards,
JS

On Sep 16, 8:32*pm, "JB" wrote:
What, this is not the "Pulling Your Leg Festival?"

Damn, it appears I have caught the wrong door again! *Last time this
happened, it was a womens restroom, at walmart, no less :-( -- at least
this is less embarrassing ... grin

ROFLOL
I did that at a technical seminar in a hotel once. *I was pondering the
ramifications of the training and didn't even look at the door. *It wasn't
until the only woman there rushed in (probably preoccupied as well) and
plopped down and peed that it dawned on me that there was something very
very wrong!

In any case, Art seems to have trouble articulating and I have completely
lost touch with any sense he might have made somewhere in the great pile of
this thread.

I get that even though a resonant dipole can be treated as if it were a
lumped constant at times, it really isn't that. *Do electrons fly back and
forth down the pole and induce a magnetic field? *
No, they are generating a magnetic field when the current is at the
surface
which means eddy currents are also there. neither of these appear when
the current is enclosed

Without flying off the
ends? Yes but that is hard to make sense of because there should be no
current flow in an open wire.
The wire may be open but the current flow IS closed

*A loop element maybe, but the resonant loop
has the same current as the center fed dipole. *Perhaps looking at the
re-entrant cavity makes more sense.

John you are equating resonance with equilibrium, a dipole in antenna
terms is a half wavelength
resonant but not in a state of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a staple in
this Universe. First comes equilibrium
after which you may consider resonance.......but not the reverse. Both
of the samples are of a half wave length thus it is not in
equilibrium.
Equilibrium comes first in the satisfaction analysis, if it fails all
falls apart.
Best regards
Art

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:47:54 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 16, 4:32*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Photons have zero rest mass.
a photon at rest, how droll.
Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling
your leg with his nonsence

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 90% of the speed of
light - it happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 90% of the speed of
light?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:19:14 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:47:54 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 16, 4:32*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Photons have zero rest mass.
a photon at rest, how droll.
Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling
your leg with his nonsence

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 90% of the speed of
light - it happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 90% of the speed of
light?"

Ah, yes!

No Newtonians in this crowd. Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC