As a mechanical engineer I am not particularly qualified with respect
to the following so I am hoping others will discuss it so it becomes
clearer to me.
Reviewing the time of Maxwell it seems his real niche was as a
mathematician
and not necessarilly on par with Faraday, Gauss, Newton and others
that supplied the various observations and formulas with which Maxwell
worked with. From my standpoint he apparently did not give due
preference to the idea of equilibriums as did ALL of his formula
suppliers and considering his object it was not that big a deal. I
then read that the formulas that were condensed in numbers did not
exactly jive! So Maxwell, the mathematician, invented displacement
current which apparently has nothing to do with radiation according to
what I read. Apparently this same current does not create a magnetic
field as the main current does e.t.c. but in mathematical terms it
gave a conclusion to what he wanted to do. From my point of view I
find it odd that a current could flow of a time varient nature does
not include a magnetic field UNLESS the current flowed in the center
of the conductor. I am not saying that displacement current travels in
the center but I do ask those educated in this field if displacement
current has been obseved, measured and is present BEYOND DOUBT? Also
as the generation of radiation is not precisely known at this time,
how could it be said it does not contribute to radiation? Starting
from that presented to Maxwell initially, exactly how did the concept
of a time varying current traveling along a radiators surface yet
without producing a magnetic field pass muster of those who study
such?
Best regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

As a mechanical engineer I am not particularly qualified with respect
to the following so I am hoping others will discuss it so it becomes
clearer to me.
Reviewing the time of Maxwell it seems his real niche was as a
mathematician
and not necessarilly on par with Faraday, Gauss, Newton and others
that supplied the various observations and formulas with which Maxwell
worked with. From my standpoint he apparently did not give due
preference to the idea of equilibriums as did ALL of his formula
suppliers and considering his object it was not that big a deal. I
then read that the formulas that were condensed in numbers did not
exactly jive! So Maxwell, the mathematician, invented displacement
current which apparently has nothing to do with radiation according to
what I read. Apparently this same current does not create a magnetic
field as the main current does e.t.c.

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current
you will find
" Displacement current has the units of electric current and it has an
associated magnetic field. "




but in mathematical terms it
gave a conclusion to what he wanted to do. From my point of view I
find it odd that a current could flow of a time varient nature does
not include a magnetic field UNLESS the current flowed in the center
of the conductor.

You are trying to justify your misbeliefs by referencing incorrect
information. Familiar with GIGO ?

I am not saying that displacement current travels in
the center

Then how can you connect the two?

but I do ask those educated in this field if displacement
current has been obseved, measured and is present BEYOND DOUBT? Also
as the generation of radiation is not precisely known at this time,
how could it be said it does not contribute to radiation? Starting
from that presented to Maxwell initially, exactly how did the concept
of a time varying current traveling along a radiators surface yet
without producing a magnetic field pass muster of those who study
such?
Best regards
Art

You repeatedly say your facts are not disputed. Well, I'm disputing them
again.

On Nov 19, 6:54*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
As a mechanical engineer I am not particularly qualified with respect
to the following so I am hoping others will discuss it so it becomes
clearer to me.
Reviewing the time of Maxwell it seems his real niche was as a
mathematician
and not necessarilly on par with Faraday, *Gauss, Newton and others
that supplied the various observations and formulas with which Maxwell
worked with. From my standpoint he apparently did not give due
preference to the idea of equilibriums as did ALL of his formula
suppliers and considering his object it was not that big a deal. I
then read that the formulas that were condensed in numbers did not
exactly jive! So Maxwell, the mathematician, invented displacement
current which apparently has nothing to do with radiation according to
what I read. Apparently this same current does not create a magnetic
field as the main current does e.t.c.

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current
you will find
" Displacement current has the units of electric current and it has an
associated magnetic field. "

but in mathematical terms it
gave a conclusion to what he wanted to do. From my point of view I
find it odd that a current could flow of a time varient nature does
not include a magnetic field UNLESS the current flowed in the center
of the conductor.

You are trying to justify your misbeliefs by referencing incorrect
information. *Familiar with GIGO ?

I am not saying that displacement current travels in
the center

Then how can you connect the two?

but I do ask those educated in this field if displacement
current has been obseved, measured and is present BEYOND DOUBT? *Also
as the generation of radiation is not precisely known at this time,
how could it be said it does not contribute to radiation? Starting
from that presented to Maxwell initially, exactly how did the concept
of a time varying current traveling along a radiators surface yet
without producing a magnetic field pass muster of those who study
such?
Best regards
Art

You repeatedly say your facts are not disputed. Well, I'm disputing them
again.

To Joe the plummer
Please read the last paragraph of Wilkpedia that you urged all to read

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

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)

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:33:08 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

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."

he cannot explain the portion which he name
Displacement current even tho he applied mathematical data.

From the same authority (sic) of wikipedia:
"Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction states that magnetic
fields can be generated in two ways: By electrical current (this
was the original "Ampère's law") and by changing electric fields
(this was Maxwell's correction, also called the displacement
current term)."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:33:08 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

he overlooked the term requilibrium

From Maxwell himself (with correct spelling):

"About the beginning of this century, the properties of bodies
were investigated by several distinguished French mathematicians
on the hypothesis that they are systems of molecules in
equilibrium. The somewhat unsatisfactory nature of the results of
these investigations produced, especially in this country, a
reaction in favour of the opposite method of treating bodies as if
they were, so far at least as our experiments are concerned, truly
continuous. This method, in the hands of Green, Stokes, and
others, has led to results, the value of which does not at all
depend on what theory we adopt as to the ultimate constitution of
bodies."

It would appear that equilibrium (by any variant of spelling) is:
1. French;
2. unsatisfactory;
3. a poorer relation to continuous (i.e. employing time which
equilibrium does not).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art Unwin wrote:
...
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG..(UK)

Obviously, you will win this one, long past the time we weed out the
idiots ...

When the magnetic field, induced in the skin of the conductor, carrying
the rf field is seen by the inner most material is seen, it will induce
an electric current into the inner most material ... however true this
is, is should be considered "insignificant" to the actual signal which
is finally radiated ... there IS LOSS, yanno'! I would venture, it ends
up "mostly" heat!

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OMG ...

.... they woke up the sleeping idiot, again ... :-(

Regards,
JS

On Nov 19, 8:36*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
...
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG..(UK)

Obviously, you will win this one, long past the time we weed out the
idiots ...

When the magnetic field, induced in the skin of the conductor, carrying
the rf field is seen by the inner most material is seen, it will induce
an electric current into the inner most material ... however true this
is, is should be considered "insignificant" to the actual signal which
is finally radiated ... there IS LOSS, yanno'! *I would venture, it ends
up "mostly" heat!

Regards,
JS

Certainly the copper loss is insignificant in the center but the
radiation resistance is only present for half the time (1/2 WL) !
Thus the input energy is half that placed on a full WL as well as the
radiated energy ( I think that is correct) So I suppose you could also
say that the radiation pulse is half the length in time of that from a
full wave antenna.Since the radiation pulse gap is small compared to
what your ear can sample I suppose the same intelligence would get
thru since the sample size is always much larger than what the ear can
interprete. Ofcourse there is the TOA to be considered in any
comparison.This looks all mixed up but I will post it anyway so that
posters will understand what real jabber jabber looks like. If you
look at it from a tank circuit point of view then it really gets
complicated especially this late in the evening
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......(xg)