Art Unwin wrote:

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.

Hi Art,

Which one was Newton's Law of Parity again? I'm drawing a blank.

Google had this:

Your search - "Newton's law of parity" - did not match any documents.

73, ac6xg

On Sep 18, 2:25*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
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.

Hi Art,

Which one was Newton's Law of Parity again? *I'm drawing a blank.

Google had this:

Your search - "Newton's law of parity" - did not match any documents.

73, ac6xg

I have been accused often in the using of the wrong term
In the case of Newtons law as action creates reaction or similar.
Then somebody mentioned the law of parity which I considered as being
on par with what Newton said
Now another poster mentioned that parity described a farming practice
which also featured the pursuit of balance and parity
with respect to prices. Thus when the term parity was used I thought
that was a regrinding of the english language which I am now exposed
to.
I now remove the association of parity in the Laws as stated by Newton
who lived in the UK and not in the USA.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:55:59 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I now remove the association of parity in the Laws as stated by Newton
who lived in the UK and not in the USA.

Yep. Newton's Laws of Motion are different on this side of the pond.

1. A particle will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity
unless acted upon by revisionist politics, traffic laws, zoning
restrictions, local ordinances, or erroneous navigation information.

2. The net force on anything is equal to size of the politically
motivated masses multiplied by the sum total their campaign
contributions.

3. Every action has an equally reactionary opposition.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sep 16, 11:06*am, 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

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.

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

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

"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?

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.