On Nov 19, 12:39*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:15:40 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Apparently this same current does not create a magnetic
field as the main current does e.t.c.
Please read the last paragraph of Wilkpedia that you urged all to read

* * * * "displacement current therefore simply refers to the fact that a
* * * * changing electric field has an associated magnetic field."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
To the group

That's the modern version I was alluding to and not the original
phrase. The part that Maxwell added is not now acceptable and has been
removed. After all, no current or magnetic field that could be
attribitable to Maxwells belated addition to a prior masters findings
was just a whim to satisfy his mathematics and his paper on Forces.The
field or the current has not been ratified
Wilkpedia makes that quite clear if you read the whole article. This
does not render Maxwell's laws as incorrect it just means that like
the weak force he cannot explain the portion which he name
Displacement current even tho he applied mathematical data. All
because he overlooked the term requilibrium and thus assumed that
displacement meant what he termed in his white paper on forces. It was
this reference that shows he overlooked the need for a full wave
antenna and thus the suggestion that force or current deflected off
the end of the radiator back on the path from whence it came., I
suppose that I can now conclude that the book Reflections
based on a hypotheses that was completely incorrect the rest of the
material can be considered suspect. There is no reflection from the
top of a fractional wavelength anttena just a perbatation called
cavitation as with all current flow which is sharply diverted from iys
initial direction.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG..(UK)