On Sep 18, 9:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 18, 8:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 18, 7:02*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
...where as, your expertise in mathematics can test
the logic to its limits which defy opposition

I am having a go at this before I read the questions!!!!

Ok, let's test your logic. *So far, I've seen exactly one prediction
of yours worth testing. *It's you claim that current flows primarily
in the center of a conductor. *Avoiding the math for now, let's do the
necessary thought experiments. *If this were a court of law, the judge
would prepare a set of rhetorical questions, all of which must be true
if the plaintiffs claims were true. *I'll do the same.

1. *If current flows along the inside of a wire, and not on the
outside, how does the field radiate through the alleged non-conducting
outer part of the wires? *The radiation would be trapped inside the
conductor, only to perhaps emerge at end

Answer
Not so a length of radiator which is a fractional wavelenth will have
charges in motion on the outside creating radiation
the rest of the charge length will be inside the radiator where a
magnetic field cannot be created and particles if they were present
cannot pierce the eddy current on the surface. For radiation at all
times the radiator must be a wavelength or multiple thereof or a
period of the frequency in use for radiation to not disappear from the
surface where the levitating force is present to eject particles

2. *If current flow along the inside of a wire, then it would seem
that increasing the effective diameter of the conductor would have no
effect on its impedance. *Measurements of the Q of large diameter
conductors versus small diameter conductors have show that impedance
goes down with an increase in wire diameter.

Answer
Not so. the increase in diameter does not affect conditions *that are
exposed to air
thus the progression of skin depth is the same. Thus copper losses on
the inside circuit
will be reduced as well as lost radiation resistance in the circuit. I
previously stated that
copper losses on the inside of a fractional wavelength antenna must be
considered separately from the groundplain resistance
which is required i.e. they are two separate resistances in series.

Answer

3. *How does a cage antenna work? *The effective diameter is huge, but
there's a giant hole in the middle, through which no current is
conducted. *If most of the RF current flowed through the center, and
there is no center, then a cage antenna can't work.

I am not familiar with a cage antenna but from the above description
is
*that it is transformed into a Farady cage

Answer

I can conjur a few more rhetorical questions, but these should be
sufficient to illustrate the problem. *Your antenna current
distribution model does not fit very well with tested reality.

Hmm why not?

Got any more prediction? *I need the target practice.

Yes
Earlier I pointed to the fact that eddy current can be neutralised
such that particles canot be ejected from the surface
Indeependent testing showed there was nothing to prevent particles
from settling on a diamagnetic substance thereby inducing
an oscillation . At the same time on the transmitting side the
particles were still present on the diamagnetic surface because the
ejection force
was neutralised thus preventing ejection otherwise seen as
transmission.

Another one
The computor on the first example disapointed me as I expected a
higher gain (stated on this net)When I corrected the nullification of
the foucault current by separation the computor program gave the gain
I initiall expected in gun shot form which migrates in a way to a
lazer ray which is oif a similar science
thus HF does not necessarily have to diverge such that gain is
nullified.

If you want more target to aim at listen for the BIG BANG and then aim
at the resulting BLACK HOLE

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Art

Here is another on per Newton *for stabalization ech action has an
opposite
reaction. I have pointed to the construct to represent these two
forces where the
rotators are at right angles to each other as with the Foucault
current.
On a terrstial scale tidal forces must also produce eddy currents of
circulating water.
Such large areas have beem found lately of the coast of Spain which is
now widening the search
rather than relying on idle reports from shipping. Since weather is
also in terrestial form a storm force
by definition requires the same force for stabalisation thus the whirl
pool and the tornado. Note the reaction force is sometimes swamped by
the
providing force by paramagnetic effects tho with respect to tornadoes
droplets of water as well as the particles at rest are drawn up into
the sky where water as a diamagnetic material provides a shift in
energy of a static form. Jeff everything seems to mesh with what I am
disclosing In addition when the droplets of water gets colder and
turns to ice the resident particles are forced to find a new home and
gyrate towards water which trees and humans consist of. The contained
energy of such particles is so small that it is inconseivable that
serch for a new resting place would contain energy of stellar size
but the movement of such particles at a high speed would provide
harmonic motion to the particles to generate a swarth of different
frequencies.
And it gos on and on
Art

Added observation
In the UK it is not unusual after a storm to find isolated patches of
frogs etc far from their normal habitat
A frog consists mainly of water upon which the surface is covered with
particles such that the frog is drawn up
in the Newton cycle. Unfortunately the frog does not freeze such that
the particles need to move away.
Unfortunately the frog falls a long way back to the ground again. The
same thing has happened with fish and frogspawn
after a storm
Art