Art wrote:
"This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other
ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to
provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be
disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator."

The theory is well tested and good.

Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts.

Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A
proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and
what`s outside out.

The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter
27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by
Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote:
"This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other
ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to
provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be
disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator."

The theory is well tested and good.

Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts.

Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A
proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and
what`s outside out.

The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter
27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by
Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI



High power coaxial transmission lines have hollow center conductors.

On Nov 16, 1:09*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other
ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to
provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be
disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator."

The theory is well tested and good.

Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts.

Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A
proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and
what`s outside out.

The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter
27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by
Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI *

Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing
intentional interference on the bands?

Jimmie

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing
intentional interference on the bands?

yeah, but not like someone who is nasty, more like someone who is funny and
keeps blabbering on saying more and more ridiculous things.

On Nov 16, 6:30*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message

...

Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing
intentional interference on the bands?

yeah, but not like someone who is nasty, more like someone who is funny and
keeps blabbering on saying more and more ridiculous things.

The funny part is trying to figure out who is the commedian and who is
the straight man. Sometimes I think Art is just someone from the CB
groups bashing y'all around. There is just too much consistency to his
insanity.

Jimmie

On Nov 16, 10:06*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:30*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"JIMMIE" wrote in message

....

Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing
intentional interference on the bands?

yeah, but not like someone who is nasty, more like someone who is funny and
keeps blabbering on saying more and more ridiculous things.

The funny part is trying to figure out who is the commedian and who is
the straight man. Sometimes I think Art is just someone from the CB
groups bashing y'all around. There is just too much consistency to his
insanity.

Jimmie

If you only speak the truth then consistency becomes the natural
outcome.
No need for me to apologise. Your measure of insanity is just
different from mine
Goodnight
Art

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:30:08 GMT, "Dave" wrote:


"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing
intentional interference on the bands?

yeah, but not like someone who is nasty, more like someone who is funny and
keeps blabbering on saying more and more ridiculous things.


Still QRN is QRN. I just do not enjoy noise as well as i enjoy the
desired signals.

On Nov 16, 12:09*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"This idea of waves moving along with the current flow and various other
ideas put forward by book authors seems to be a never ending attempt to
provide substance(d) to long ago thought out bad theory which would be
disrupted if current was observed to flow in the center of a radiator."

The theory is well tested and good.

Authors often write books to inform. They are paid for their efforts.

Skin effect is a fact of agreement among the scientific community. A
proof is readily at hand. Coaxial cable keeps what`s inside in and
what`s outside out.

The best exposition of "skin effect" that I know of is found in chapter
27 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith. The 1st edition was published in 1962. It was republished by
Scitech in 2006. Art would enjoy and benefit from all 638 pages.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI *

Richard I have made my thoughts known on radiation as well as the path
I followed
that brought me to where I am. In the past 100 years or more science
has not come to a consensus as to what energy is.
Einstein seached all his life for the weak force which he considered a
major part of radiatiation which leads to a Unified theory.
Today there is not one book thaat can provide a satisfactory answer as
to how radiattion is created.
What I am saying that there are to many theories that are being tagged
upon one another leading to an incorrect trail upon which books are
being printed
for a individual generation. So I proposed to myself a retreat from
the books and go back to Maxwells laws plus those of the masters that
provided the information to him and then with an open mind looked at
it with the 21st century in mind and the information garnered by
observation as opposed to theory.
Present day science is all a buzz about Neutrinos, CERN and the Sun
which is in a continually burning state creating partly burnt
constituents.
Gauss has a law dealing with particles and I have an interest in ham
radio. It is therefore natuaral to me that in light of present day
observances
Einstein may well have been correct even tho not aware of discoveries
found after his death. Thus my concentration was on outside particles
and not the wave style theorem and thus eventually arrived at the weak
force phenomina which is in use in many ways on Earyth which can also
be subcribed to radiation. But saying is not enough so I have used
Maxwellian computor programs to design these antennas with good
results all of which are bound
to the edict of equilibrium which all the past masters adhered to.
Einstein was not privy to a lot of things that I used on my jorney but
many hams do
and can easily confirm my findings which are observables not dreams
that support Maxwell. Books cannot and do not provide an actual
journey that provides a trail without gaps for the generation of
radiation. I have by starting the trail at the beginning with present
day science in mind and not pursuing the mode of academics who seek
favor by piggy backing theories of those who have received award thus
shutting out a;ll other aproaches.
Yes my thinking is known and yes I think for myself with no formal
attachment to the books upon which my education started where it is
incumbent on graduates to continue to hone and secure futher
information for the next generation rather than the sole pursuit of
personal wealth.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg (uk)

Art wrote:
"Einstein may well have been correct even tho not aware of discovries
found after his death."

Wouldn`t anyone like to be aware of all the discoveries made before his
death?

Einstein said something like: "Keep it simple, but not too simple!"

Scientists have in many instances followed Einstein`s advice and reduced
things to simplest terms. Maxwell`s equations as simplified and
explained by Heaviside have been used to successfully predict EM
behavior for a century. They give the answers needed so there has been
no great search for a replacement.

The research at CERN on colliding beams is more likely of interest to
those working with ionizing radiation than to those working with the
nonionizing type we use in radio telecommunications.

There is and was agreement among many with Kraus when he wrote on page
37 of the 3rd edition of "Antennas":
"Although a charge moving with uniform velocity along a straight
conductor does not radiate, a charge moving back and forth in simple
harmonic motion along the conductor is subject to acceleration (and
deceleration) and radiates."

An interesting view of the mechanism of radiation is given by B.
Whitfield Griffith, Jr. on page 315 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission
Fundamentals".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote:
"Einstein may well have been correct even tho not aware of discovries
found after his death."

Wouldn`t anyone like to be aware of all the discoveries made before his
death?

Einstein said something like: "Keep it simple, but not too simple!"

Scientists have in many instances followed Einstein`s advice and reduced
things to simplest terms. Maxwell`s equations as simplified and
explained by Heaviside have been used to successfully predict EM
behavior for a century. They give the answers needed so there has been
no great search for a replacement.
...
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


I love Einstein, but then, I have met few Germans I didn't like ...

However, gravity serves a prime example of what you suggest, here. We
know nothing about it, but a lot about its' affects and effects; we
have many formulas to tell us about those and a few theories to tell us
what it (gravity) actually is. So, I doubt it surprises anyone that we
stand at, almost, this exact situation with EM.

However, to lift the blanket and peer upon the true substance and nature
of these things would take us to a whole 'nother level of possibilities
in their uses ...

So, if you argument is going to become, "We already know enough of these
things, let us go no further"; well, some just may follow you--some not
.... personally, I'd "druther" not ...

Warm regards,
JS