Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 17, 2:26*pm, "JB" wrote:
OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a radiator. Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I apologize I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things together. When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another try later Regards Art Consider that there is little difference in the performance of a solid radiator and hollow radiator. There are things about Electromagnetic Radiation that aren't discussed by Newton. *Study classical antenna theory, then you will be on common ground with others that study antennas. *The danger of concentrating on your own line of study so much is that you wind up out on a limb. *I see this often when dealing with different terminology spawned of different paradigms, where similar circuits are redrawn and renamed by different engineering teams. *This is nowhere more evident in Psychology and Philosophy, where insight springs from the conclusions derived from the limited experiences of an isolated group or individual. *It is like the blind men describing an elephant when they have only one part in front of them. *They each call the elephant something else based on their singular experience and arrive at logical conclusions that are false. *The fact that we only have one lifetime to devote to all the pieces is indeed a limitation. Could well be but I have no alternative and am going my own way. Why should this disturb others? They could easily show me the error of my ways instead of taking up the cause against change We all know Newtons Laws ( some interprete in different ways) So we have a radiator upon which a charge rests there for ethere is no need for a opposing vector inside the radiator. Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium and thus we have a vector which according to the laws of Newton or equilibrium or what ever requires a responding vector inside the conductor. Inside the conductor there is no magnetic field nor the Foucalt current thus it is not radiating just spending copper losses. Put the apparatus in a vacuum and the current will take a less resistive route by producing an arc at the ends AWAY from the radiator. To me that sounds as perfect logic but there is no book that states it or the presence of the Foucalt current. That is not to say there are not a lot of explanations all of which are different so I go back to first principles and people get angry at the idea of change. Now the tide on this post has turned around on Cecil. Let me warn you that Cecil has outlasted this group several times to the tune of threads extending more than a thousand more than a few times over the last 20 years. One person who harasses him tries a lot of tactics on him including pointing out that his only difference he has with a dog is lipstickl but only the newbies respond to him unnowingly. Cecil will out last them all. Art Back to the mowing |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Equilibrium in free space | Antenna | |||
Equilibrium | Antenna | |||
Gaussian equilibrium | Antenna |