On Nov 23, 9:18*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
If Cecil were asked where a reflection occurs on an antenna or a
transmission line, I`d wager he would reply, at the same place the
impedance discontinuity occurs.

Yep, and if one impedance is infinite (or zero or purely
reactive), the magnitude of the reflection coefficient
is |1.0|, i.e. 100% reflection.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Ceci
If the surface of a conductor is completely covered by precharged
particles
and is aprouched by a changing electrical field would it not it be
opposed by the
electric field pre placed on the surface? Would the difference between
these two colliiding fields
create its own opposing magnetic field i9n concert with the main
applied electric field?
If we are to account for the electric field applied to the radiator
then we would have to add the energy
lost in the collision! After all the collision forces are no different
to the energy lost if the field produced
by the resting particles was the equivalent to a resister.
When Maxwell uses an "=:" that is an acknoweledgement of a state of
equilibrium such that the energy supplied to the radiator
must remain the same as the energy plus losses entailed in the closed
circuit and the collision created losses that must be accounted for.
Would it not be correct to say the applied energy must be equal toi
the primary electric field created plus the opposing electrical
field.?,
Ampere assumed that the energy applied to the circuit equaled the
energy received not knowing tha tthe energy would split into two
fields and not remain as one. This collision energy must be accounted
for on account of the addition of the "=' ancd the same energy that
Ampere was aware of but did not consider it to be present.( Note for a
discharged particle to have spin on ejection there must be two fields
present)
The bottom line is Ampere was correct with his law because he was
unaware that another field was present and thus did not include it.
Maxwell faced with combining all laws such that equilibrium occures
which allows the use of the "=" was left to account for it and thus
satisfy Newtons law.
Thus the eddy current fits neatly into the law of Maxwell and where
the addition he made only became known at a later date by Foucaults
discovery.
Thus the Foucault current or eddy current did three t things 1 it
satisfied the laws of equilibrium ie "=" addition 2 he added an
addition that matched the units and quantity values of the Foucault
current in an exact form including the addition of the speed of light
unit that reflects an implied speed of the ejected particle and 3
proved Einstein correct in his assumption that the Weak Force was part
and parcel of radiation.
Now we see that the "interpretation" of Maxwells addition was in error
or an invalid theory which can now be replaced by the eddy current
addition
which concurrs with Amperes assertion that there are two ways an
electric field can occur.
In summation the addition made by Maxwell was his mathematical
intuition by stating that the energy applied equalled TWO electrical
fields and not just one which was subsequently proven by Foucault.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG (uk)