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.

I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
Somebody said the current flow backwards now that is hard to
understand unles he is refering to a tank circuit
where the antenna has capacitance at one end and inductance at the
other and the current goes nowhere.
I think I will sit back and see what the experts say and if the IEEE
has accepted al these explanations.
One thing I particularly have difficulty with is that the secondary
current can overcome the primary current
where the power flows back to a wall plug or something like that.
Another infers that current travel in a aluminum tube is different to
the flow of a solid conductor presumably with double the surface area
you have double the amount of radiation. The next publication from the
ARRL is going to rock the science world with these findings on
radiation. Funny thing is that based on my findings I designed an
antenna which computer program AO Pro
determined was quite good, an arrangement that is if the program
doesn;'t follow the teachings of the books should I then throw the
program away?
NEC4 models the antenna that is in equilibrium also isn't that a
bummer? If only somebody would come up with a vector diagram of a
radiator that was NOT in equilibrium I could locate my fault very
quickly. Still if all of what has been described will be published in
the ARRL and IEEE papers I can afford to wait.
Thank you all
Art

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Where is motion?

Velocity = c

Where is time?

Time stands still for anything traveling at
velocity = c

Yeah, well, if you take a cubic centimeter of "energy" around yourself,
of even myself, for that matter, it better be at rest! Otherwise, the
motion/time thing, which your simplistic equation ignores, will, MOST
CERTAINLY, come into play ...

However, the equation you gave is good ... but just NOT that simple for
REAL world situations ... but then, I stated that, before you gave the
equation ...

You have argued this yourself, most vehemently, with photons ... think
about it ... an argument I actually agreed with, and echo here ...
motion DOES change things, a bit ... and, it is VERY DIFFICULT to keey
energized particles at rest, but then, not impossible ;-)

Regards,
JS

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

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? Please reference
which speed of light a photon cannot travel slower than. Assuming your
answer is the universal constrant "c", then my question is, knowing
that light travels faster through a vacuum than it does through water,
is the light travelling through water still "photons" or is that
impossible because they are travelling too slow? What are they then?
Please advise. Thanks.


My gawd that is a LOT of text for a simple point! Do you have any
schooling at all? But then, there is a "velocity factor" and this is
the property of the media "it" travels ... And, the velocity of light,
or RF, though a media, is differing, yes ...And, I have nothing to add
on photons speed thought any material ... indeed ... photons and waves
are very much in debate here ... but then, if you are/were awake, you
already "know" that ...

Anyway, the short answer, think "velocity factor" and yes, "they" do
travel MUCH slower than the speed of light ...

And, actually, your question seems one posed by a complete idiot ... but
then, you DON'T REALIZE THAT, DO YOU?

Anyway, good luck in all your pursuits ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

On Sep 17, 5:52*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
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

What about Cerenkov radiation? In this case, beta particles with mass
travel faster than light in a water medium. So much for 'nothing can
travel faster than a photon'. It depends on the medium. If the medium
is a vacuum, then yes, nothing can travel faster than the speed of
light in that medium. Need to be careful. I have to Credit R. Clark
for pointinmg this out some time ago. See http://nuclear.mst.edu/research/reactor.html

Rectifier wrote:

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.

And yet all are the speed of light. In that media. What's your issue
with that?

tom
K0TAR

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

Art Unwin wrote:
I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
snip
Art

If you do the differential equations, it doesn't say why the center
can't so much as why the skin does. Similar to gravitation and water
flowing downhill vs uphill. I'll go into detail if you can't figure it
out. Or not.

tom
K0TAR

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:09:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 17, 3:25*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
wrote:

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
* mr = relativistic mass
* mo = mass at rest
* v *= velocity of particle
* c *= speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - 0.813)^0.5 = 1/ (0.187)^0.5 = 1/ 0.432 = 2.31

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 2.3 times
that of the particle at rest. *It doesn't matter what particle. *Maybe
a silver star?

Not correct. It's not quite as simple as e = m*c**2. You must use the
Lorentz transformation.

I didn't use e = m * c^2

Using the same values you have assiged to c and v, the correct
equation would be:

mr = mo/SQRT(1 - v**2/c**2)

That's exactly the same equation I used but with different notation.
It's still the square root:
SQRT(whatever) = (whatever)^0.5

Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

I also divided both sides of the equation by mo to get the ratio of
relativistic mass to the at rest mass.

As v = c, mr must = infinity (therefore no mass can reach c)

Yep.
Go FTL (faster than light), and you get a cosmic speeding ticket.


--
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 17, 8:52*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I know books say a lot of things but do they explain WHY current
cannot flow thru the center?
snip
Art

If you do the differential equations, it doesn't say why the center
can't so much as why the skin does. *Similar to gravitation and water
flowing downhill vs uphill. *I'll go into detail if you can't figure it
out. *Or not.

tom
K0TAR

Please do. I would love to see your take on it. I am gratified that
somebody is tackling the problem
hopefully in laymans language so all can benefit. Possibly you could
start another thread as this one is greatly contaminated
I can then respond on my take of the matter and hopefully the flaw
will be exposed.
Regards
Art