"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Rectifier wrote:
It's not the light that bends the comet's tail.

If the sun put out nothing except EM waves, what
would a comet's tail look like? I suggest you
read Eugene Hecht's section in "Optics" titled:
"3.3.4 Radiation Pressure and Momentum" in my
4th edition.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

You cut off the first line of my post, "Do you know that the sun puts out a
lot of neutrons and other particles?" I didn't say the sun puts out nothing
except EM waves.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Rectifier wrote:
When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits wave properties.

When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle
properties.

When does light travel at a speed other than the speed of light?

From another of my postings: "If I remember correctly,
a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of light."

The first nine words in my first statement above are
not mine but were copied verbatim from Rectifier's posting
(except for the misspelled word). If there was an implication
that light can travel at less than the speed of light, it
didn't come from me.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Light travels at different speeds in different media, such as water, glass,
etc.

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

wrote:
Are you proposing that a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of
light in a vacuum, or it cannot travel slower than the speed of light
in water or the speed of light through glass or air?

In any random medium, a photon cannot travel slower
than the speed of light through that medium. In
particular, photons associated with standing waves
do NOT stand still.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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.

Rectifier wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
If the sun put out nothing except EM waves, what
would a comet's tail look like? I suggest you
read Eugene Hecht's section in "Optics" titled:
"3.3.4 Radiation Pressure and Momentum" in my
4th edition.

You cut off the first line of my post, "Do you know that the sun puts
out a lot of neutrons and other particles?" I didn't say the sun puts
out nothing except EM waves.

I am asking you: What if the sun put out nothing except
EM waves. Would comets still have a tail or not?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Rectifier wrote:
Light travels at different speeds in different media, such as water,
glass, etc.

It is still traveling at the speed of light in that medium.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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

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.

On Sep 17, 6:11*pm, joe wrote:
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 linkhttp://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.

Ok Joe I will go along with everything you said Thank you for your
comments
Arft