On Sep 16, 2:49*pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 11:56 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:



"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 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

Art:
You have written 2,947 posts to RRAA, and at least 2/3 of them
contain a reference to " equilibrium". Numerous people have asked
you to define or at least explain your usage of the term. So far, you
have not done so.Actually, you have either diverted the question, or
told questioners to do their own research. Your posts show that you
know nothing about how antennas work, and suspect very little.Why
would ARRL correct something that's perfectly fine as is???

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

Mike
I know more about antennas and radiation than you think !
For instance, equilibrium demands that charges do not move laterally
along an antenna when in equilibrium
Without equilibrium charges do move along the surface of a radiator
and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the *CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.
Thus for a radiator that is not in equilibrium has three resistance
1 Radiation resistance
2 outer resistance
3 Inner copper resistance.

Equilibrium is nothing more than *the enforcement of Newtons law of
parity.
This is so simple to those who work from first principles for
themselves instead of being lemmings.
Correctness is not always determined from a poll
Regards
Art

-

I've heard of Newton's laws of motion, but not Newton's law of parity.
Newton dealt primarily with motion, mass, and such. *Electromagnetic
radiation hadn't even been discovered when Newton was alive.
Electromagnetic radiation does not behave the same way as matter, which is
described in terms such as momentum, inertia, accceleration and such.

Mike
Einstein changed course in study because he could not solve the
description of the weak force
which I see as foucalt current. Knowing this Einstein would be proud
to stand up as state his
thoughts on Universal law has now been proved forget. You cannot
parcel laws based on a particular subject.
Universl laws are just that. UNIVERSAL. What on earth does parity mean
in the U.S.?
Art