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.

On Sep 17, 5:56*pm, "Frank" wrote:
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.

I did not research your reason for making the statement. However,
there is a commonly accepted derivation of a skin effect calculation
that makes frequency inversely proportional to skin depth. There is
nothing about the fraction of the wavelength that occupies the
conductor length. Can you provide a technical cite? Thanks.

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

On Sep 17, 5:16*pm, "Frank" wrote:
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

I read that last one Frank but I think it is aimed at computer geeks
which I am not.
Pleased to see eddy currents are the underlying phenomina responsible
for skin depth
presumably he explains how the secondary current can overcome that
which creats it.
At last we have a source for free energy
Regards
Art

I read that last one Frank but I think it is aimed at computer geeks
which I am not.
Pleased to see eddy currents are the underlying phenomina responsible
for skin depth
presumably he explains how the secondary current can overcome that
which creats it.
At last we have a source for free energy
Regards
Art

Not sure if you got the correct site Art, since there should be nothing
concerning computers at: http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/comps/zint.html.
Also the excellent references at:
http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/comps/refs.html
Note that the central current in the conductor is significantly less than
than the surface current. Solution of the Kelvin functions should
be easy with Mathcad, or similar, providing only the first few
terms of the series are considered. Direct computation of
these modified Bessel functions is limited to the latest versions of
Mathcad,
since the earlier versions cannot handle complex arguments.
A more rigorous treatment can be found at the following:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KelvinFunctions.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bei.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ber.html
Where, even with Mathcad 7, using the 20, or so, first terms of the series
expansions, I have gotten good agreement with the published curves.
Mathcad certainly does not like the upper limits of the series to
be infinity. Probably even Excel could handle it.

73,

Frank

On Sep 17, 8:48*pm, "Frank" wrote:
I read that last one Frank but I think it is aimed at computer geeks
which I am not.
Pleased to see eddy currents are the underlying phenomina responsible
for skin depth
presumably he explains how the secondary current can overcome that
which creats it.
At last we have a source for free energy
Regards
Art

Not sure if you got the correct site Art, since there should be nothing
concerning computers at:http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/comps/zint.html.
Also the excellent references at:http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/comps/refs.html
Note that the central current in the conductor is significantly less than
than the surface current. *Solution of the Kelvin functions should
be easy with Mathcad, or similar, providing only the first few
terms of the series are considered. *Direct computation of
these modified Bessel functions is limited to the latest versions of
Mathcad,
since the earlier versions cannot handle complex arguments.
A more rigorous treatment can be found at the following:http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KelvinF...m.com/Ber.html
Where, even with Mathcad 7, using the 20, or so, first terms of the series
expansions, I have gotten good agreement with the published curves.
Mathcad certainly does not like the upper limits of the series to
be infinity. Probably even Excel could handle it.

73,

Frank

Thanks for your effots Frank I would appreciate your presence when Tom
discusses it
as I suspect that both of you overshadow my expertise on the matter
Regards
Art

On Sep 17, 6:16*pm, "Frank" wrote:
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

What is the frequency of the currents flowing backwards? If the same
as forward current (which it would be), then that and a few other
attributes such as conductor size, resistivity and mu, I can give you
skin depth by simple subtraction of the forward/reverse current
vectors. However, it will not necessarily indicate indicate that some/
no current flows in the center....it depends on the above variables.
At lower frequencies, a certain proportion of the current distribution
may occupy the center if the conductor is thin enough.

On Sep 17, 10:40*pm, wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:16*pm, "Frank" wrote:



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

What is the frequency of the currents flowing backwards? If the same
as forward current (which it would be), then that and a few other
attributes such as conductor size, resistivity and mu, I can give you
skin depth by simple subtraction of the forward/reverse current
vectors. However, it will not necessarily indicate indicate that some/
no current flows in the center....it depends on the above variables.
At lower frequencies, a certain proportion of the current distribution
may occupy the center if the conductor is thin enough.

No Im not going that direction. Visulise a salvage yard that use
magnetic
fields on a conveyor which produces a collision of magnetic fields
which
levitates artucles made of aluminum such that it falls in a selected
container
the ejection being created by the foucault or eddy current.
Now look at that same conveyor belt as a antenna or radiator upon
which particles are at rest.I easily can visualise
the same action as a replica of a antenna with particles at rest since
Gaussian law of statics when extended equals maxwells law
Thus equilibrium and the presence of particles I take as a given. Also
by viewing the Gaussian field one can determine that a radiator
can be any size shape or elevation as long as the arrangement in
equilibrium. This points away from planar designs as well as the final
arrangement must not posses external lumped loads as maxwell provides
no place for them. In a way I am working backwards that render the
eddy force as the weak force
of the four forces of the standard model. Placing a verticle antenna
in a computor program without leaning it to a planar design and the
resulting radiator
shows the angle and magnitude of the "weak" force according to
Maxwells laws upon which the program is founded. This weak force is
thus appearing as the pitch of a helix antenna which confirmes the
reasoning against straight planar antennas. As far as how the static
particle obtained its own magnetic field I assume that exposure to the
earths magnetic field left a residue of thst immersion which is the
other field on the conveyor belt. Since the ejection of the partical
must be of a straight line projection the combination of the two
magnetic fields will provide that spin and where the reaction to the
ejection creates a vivration on the radiator as with the human ear
bone with the reverse acting on the receiving antenna. The particle
chose diamagnetic material to rest upon because as an free electron it
will not be absorbed in the matrix of other materials. Now that is in
laymans language based upon the salvage actions in use today as well
as non destructive material measurements which appear to be a
duplicate of the antenna function. Yes it is a woven dialogue but it
does duplicate functions in use that are not theoretical and for me
matches perfectly. I don't see how I can explain my thoughts any
better to avoid
the implication that it is all blabber since to me it explaind
radiation in detail where it does not appear as a mystery.
unfortunately hams will not follow in detail my reasoningas emotion
rules their responses and where they then introduce other areas of
science that was not present in the initial reasoning
and thus make me an easy mark for derision. So stick with my reasoning
and break it apart piece by piece scientifically to show my resoning
produces
an impossibility. I might add that nobody accepts that the addition of
a radiator and a time varying field produces a dynamic field which
mathematically
reflects Maxwells laws which if they are correct tears my reasoning
apart . I know it is very hard to follow and leaving many places to
laugh at.
I also placed a helix antenna in euilibrium and without external
lumped loads which produces a pattern of gun shot form whigch again I
expected with a gain of around 10dbi. Go figure
Art

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.