On Sep 17, 9:41*pm, "Frank" wrote:
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.

As mentioned before; in particular reference [9a] of:http://www.g3ynh.info:80/zdocs/comps/refs.html
Ramo, et. al was published in 1965. *The methods of computation
for cylindrical conductors has been known for some time.

One thing I particularly have difficulty with is that the secondary
current can overcome the primary current

Note the central current flow is significantly less than
the surface 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.

As in a charged sphere the net internal field is zero.

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?

I am not familiar with AO Pro, but usually NEC based programs
will compute an average gain test, which helps determine the
validity of the model. *Pushing the limits of the program concerning
conductor proximity, length to diameter ratio, etc. can produce
erroneous results.

NEC4 models the antenna that is in equilibrium also isn't that a
bummer?

NEC 4, and 2, for that matter, *use a "Thin wire approximation" which
assumes current only exists at the surface of the wire, has only axial
components, and the surface current is uniform around the wire.

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.

I am not sure what you mean by a "Vector diagram".

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

Frank

A vector diagram that shows a charge at rest on the surface of a
radiator which shows that there is no opposing vector at the center.
Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium. In that case i
would place a vector on the surface and another vector at the center.
Thus charges are in motion both on the outside and the inside of the
radiator.I base this on the reasoning that the inner resistance is
less
than 377 where an arc is produced at the ends. the idea that the
leading edge of current flow will reverse at the radiator ends and
oppose the trailing current is just beyond my thinking as you do not
have a closed circuit. I have not seen an illustration that shows
current that reverses upon itself in a open circuit.
Regards
Art

A vector diagram that shows a charge at rest on the surface of a
radiator which shows that there is no opposing vector at the center.
Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium. In that case i
would place a vector on the surface and another vector at the center.
Thus charges are in motion both on the outside and the inside of the
radiator.I base this on the reasoning that the inner resistance is
less
than 377 where an arc is produced at the ends. the idea that the
leading edge of current flow will reverse at the radiator ends and
oppose the trailing current is just beyond my thinking as you do not
have a closed circuit. I have not seen an illustration that shows
current that reverses upon itself in a open circuit.
Regards
Art

Art, I am totally confused. I don't understand what you are
trying to say. Can you explain what you mean by the term
"Vector"? For something to be called a vector it must meet
a number of precise mathematical criteria. Note the
"Formal definition" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space

73, Frank

On Sep 19, 12:17*am, "Frank" wrote:
A vector diagram that shows a charge at rest on the surface of a
radiator which shows that there is no opposing vector at the center.
Then we have a radiator that is not in equilibrium. In that case i
would place a vector on the surface and another vector at the center.
Thus charges are in motion both on the outside and the inside of the
radiator.I base this on the reasoning that the inner resistance is
less
than 377 where an arc is produced at the ends. the idea that the
leading edge of current flow will reverse at the radiator ends and
oppose the trailing current is just beyond my thinking as you do not
have a closed circuit. I have not seen an illustration that shows
current that reverses upon itself in a open circuit.
Regards
Art

Art, I am totally confused. *I don't understand what you are
trying to say. *Can you explain what you mean by the term
"Vector"? *For something to be called a vector it must meet
a number of precise mathematical criteria. *Note the
"Formal definition" at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space

73, *Frank

A vetor diagram in my mind evolves around Newtons laws
All forces (vectors) forces when summed must equal zero.
Whether their is a triange or a polygon of forces it always leaves a
gap
whuch thus provides a vector required to make he arrangement equal
zero
and in a state of equilibrium. The masters always followed this
aproach to determine if equilibrium
was present by vectorizing all the forces known within a arbitrary
border. They always came up with
an unclosed vector arrangement even tho it met the requirements of
equilibrium. So all filled in the gap
o arrive at the starting point and labelled this unknown vector that
they were forced to provide as the weak force required for equilibrium
to satisfy Newtons law.
Regards
Art

A vetor diagram in my mind evolves around Newtons laws
All forces (vectors) forces when summed must equal zero.
Whether their is a triange or a polygon of forces it always leaves a
gap
whuch thus provides a vector required to make he arrangement equal
zero
and in a state of equilibrium. The masters always followed this
aproach to determine if equilibrium
was present by vectorizing all the forces known within a arbitrary
border. They always came up with
an unclosed vector arrangement even tho it met the requirements of
equilibrium. So all filled in the gap
o arrive at the starting point and labelled this unknown vector that
they were forced to provide as the weak force required for equilibrium
to satisfy Newtons law.
Regards
Art

I think you are confusing the "Weak force", resposible for "Beta decay"
in radio-active materials. The following web site explains the work
of Enrico Fermi in this area:
http://atomic-molecular-optical-phys...the_weak_force
While it is not unreasonable to consider Newtonian mechanics in
an explanation of what hapens within a conductor, there is no
missing force involved.

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Frank wrote:
snip

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix!

You fool.

tom
K0TAR

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. net...
Frank wrote:
snip

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix!

You fool.

when he starts quoting gauge's laws and how they describe the weak force
equilibrium in Maxwell's equations it should add another level of laugh
potential.

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. net...
Frank wrote:
snip

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix!

You fool.

tom
K0TAR


here is the best description of art's equilibrium i have found:

Perturbative string theory may be used to show that massless particles can
only have spins 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2. This conclusion follows from an analysis
of the energy of various harmonic oscillators included in the string that
contribute to the mass of the resulting particle. This conclusion
beautifully agrees with facts about gauge invariance that may be derived
using spacetime arguments.

If you consider any semirealistic physical system, it reduces to quantum
fields at long distances - fields that are able to create particles. Because
of the rotational symmetry, these particles may be classified according to
their spin. For spins equal to 0 or 1/2, one only creates states of positive
norms (think about the Klein-Gordon and Dirac fields). However, for spin 1
and higher, there are inevitably negative-norm states in the Hilbert space
created by the simplest version of these quantum fields. For example, the
time-like component of a 4-vector field creates states whose norm has the
opposite (negative) sign than the space-like components of the same field.
Such a decoupling implies an infinite amount of accidents that are
equivalent to a symmetry.

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. net...
Frank wrote:
snip

Computation of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of a
conductor involve manipulation of the "Vector magnetic potential";
as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential

Frank

Please no! Now he'll add gauge invariance to the mix!

You fool.

tom
K0TAR

Heck, I never noticed that reference. Just wanted to show
Art how vectors are used in reality!

73, Frank

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:04:47 GMT, "Frank"
wrote:

Heck, I never noticed that reference. Just wanted to show
Art how vectors are used in reality!

Frank - from Hero to Zero with that last sentence's observation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC