On Dec 5, 8:01*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 5, 7:01*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
At 3 times the standard depth of skin depth the density is 5 percent
of that on the surface, below which only copper losses with respect to
a time varying current. So what exactly forces a time varying current
to take an alternate route of travel from the center of a conductor
when the resistance is so low compared to other routes that could be
taken.?
Note : center resistance is lower than that on the surface because
skin depth (opposing eddy currents) cannot form.
Art

Babble.

Skin depth and what cause it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_depth

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

If you can point to
an error in the given mathematics text

What "given mathematics text"?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What you pointed to as being contrary to what I stated
Silly statement with a liberal smattering of "bable"
does nothing to suggest that you are up to date education in the art.
Next please
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 5, 8:01Â*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 5, 7:01Â*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
At 3 times the standard depth of skin depth the density is 5 percent
of that on the surface, below which only copper losses with respect to
a time varying current. So what exactly forces a time varying current
to take an alternate route of travel from the center of a conductor
when the resistance is so low compared to other routes that could be
taken.?
Note : center resistance is lower than that on the surface because
skin depth (opposing eddy currents) cannot form.
Art

Babble.

Skin depth and what cause it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_depth

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

If you can point to
an error in the given mathematics text

What "given mathematics text"?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What you pointed to as being contrary to what I stated

What I pointed to wasn't a "mathematics text" and if it is contrary
to what you stated, that is because your statements are babbling
nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

JP wrote:

Skin depth and what cause it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_depth


The Wikipedia treatment is not incorrect, but it may create a false
impression that the skin effect is limited to some particular type or
cross-section of conductor.

There is a more general derivation by Davidson that has far fewer
restrictions about the assumed geometry. There is a scanned copy at:
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek/misc/skin.htm

Davidson shows much more clearly that the existence of a skin effect
does not depend on any particular shape or size of conductor, or any
particular type of electrical circuit. If RF current is flowing in a
conductor - regardless of the reason - then the skin effect will be
present.

That is a very powerful conclusion. Because we know the skin effect will
be present, it helps us to trace the RF current pathways on complex
shapes such as coaxial cables and shielded loops.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

On Dec 6, 2:38*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
JP wrote:

Skin depth and what cause it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_depth

The Wikipedia treatment is not incorrect, but it may create a false
impression that the skin effect is limited to some particular type or
cross-section of conductor.

There is a more general derivation by Davidson that has far fewer
restrictions about the assumed geometry. There is a scanned copy at:http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek/misc/skin.htm

Davidson shows much more clearly that the existence of a skin effect
does not depend on any particular shape or size of conductor, or any
particular type of electrical circuit. If RF current is flowing in a
conductor - regardless of the reason - then the skin effect will be
present.

That is a very powerful conclusion. Because we know the skin effect will
be present, it helps us to trace the RF current pathways on complex
shapes such as coaxial cables and shielded loops.

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK * * * * 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Thank you very much for the addition supplied. I never really
understood why hams could not accept this
From my point oif view the beauty of the Foulcalt or eddy current is
without this "pealing" on the chemical adhesion effect
that a particle has on a diamagnetic surface the ejected particle
would be without spin, and as such would not be able to have straight
line
projection within a gravitational field, a necessity for radiation.
Any book on wave guides will picture this eddy current on the inside
walls
and any book on non destructive testing will also corroberate its
presence
and yet it is still rejected by this group. When Maxwell inserted the
required units to achieve equilibrium per Newton it was the
mathematics that forcast
the presence of a levitation force that would not be identified for
several decades but stil ignored because of the dominance of wave
theory.
Cheers
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote

Thank you very much for the addition supplied. I never really
understood why hams could not accept this.
_______

Not just hams, Art.

Skin depth applies to a-c energy flowing along a conductor. The same
principles of physics apply no matter to which end of a conductor that
a-c is applied.

That is, the a-c energy reflected from the unterminated end of a
conductor will travel on its outside for the same reason it traveled
on the outside of that conductor when first applied to it, at its
other end. Fractional wavelength conductors and your "equilibrium" are
irrelevant to this.

The center conductor of rigid coaxial transmission line used in the
broadcast industry is hollow, because it can carry the same amount of
a-c energy as it could if it was solid (and costs/weighs a lot less).

RF

Art wrote:
"When Maxwell inserted the required units to acheive equilibrium per
Newton it was the mathematics that forcast the presence of a levitation
force that would not be identified for several decades but still ignored
because of the dominance of wave theory."

Maxwell found his equations had the form of those predicting behavior of
water waves and they correctly predicted the velocity of light as
previously determined.

Maxwell was a mathematician and a physicist who searched for things with
practical applications. In one of Maxwell`s lectures he said: "Now,
Professor Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, is not an
electrician who found out how to make a tin plate speak, but a speaker,
who to gain his private ends, has become an electrician."

Maxwell`s equations are adequate to solve all questions of radio waves
at once in place of a multitude of their predecessors. Art even agrees
they work as a basis for antenna programs in computers however he spells
computer. Using the tried and proven until something better comes along
is common sense.

From what i`ve seen, wave theory works well for large scale predictions
while the particle theory seems to work at the atomic scale. Too bad
Cern had an instantaneous multimillion dollar breakdown.

A.G. Bell produced the most valuable patent in history. What are the
results of the Unwin patents?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Dec 9, 12:53*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"When Maxwell inserted the required units to acheive equilibrium per
Newton it was the mathematics that forcast the presence of a levitation
force that would not be identified for several decades but still ignored
because of the dominance of wave theory."

Maxwell found his equations had the form of those predicting behavior of
water waves and they correctly predicted the velocity of light as
previously determined.

Maxwell was a mathematician and a physicist who searched for things with
practical applications. In one of Maxwell`s lectures he said: "Now,
Professor Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, is not an
electrician who found out how to make a tin plate speak, but a speaker,
who to gain his private ends, has become an electrician."

Maxwell`s equations are adequate to solve all questions of radio waves
at once in place of a multitude of their predecessors. Art even agrees
they work as a basis for antenna programs in computers however he spells
computer. Using the tried and proven until something better comes along
is common sense.

From what i`ve seen, wave theory works well for large scale predictions
while the particle theory seems to work at the atomic scale. Too bad
Cern had an instantaneous multimillion dollar breakdown.

A.G. Bell produced the most valuable patent in history. What are the
results of the Unwin patents?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * *

On Dec 9, 12:53*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"When Maxwell inserted the required units to acheive equilibrium per
Newton it was the mathematics that forcast the presence of a levitation
force that would not be identified for several decades but still ignored
because of the dominance of wave theory."

Maxwell found his equations had the form of those predicting behavior of
water waves and they correctly predicted the velocity of light as
previously determined.

This seems a distortion of the facts. The addition was seen as the
forces between
current and the force between static particles which was in fact a
confirmation of the the speed of light.
My understanding of the term eddy current with respect to waves was
that it was ,made much later.
But the realization of the connection to light should have really
been recognised by Maxwell as a displacement of particles
and not waves since the presence of particles is predetermined. This
lack of understanding alsio helped the incorrect determination of
light
being a formation of waves instead of particles. This by the way also
cements the validity of changing Gauss's law of statics to a dynamic
field to equate with Maxwells laws which also confirms the presence of
particles. Another correlation to my theory is the interaction of
particles with the Earths magnetic field to produce Aurora or Northern
Lights i.e. particles bombardmentnot waves, Same goes for light
created at the center of a tornado which in itself
is the "eddy current" of a storm where againb light is seen as a
lightning strike where particles plus moisture is drawn into the
stratoshere an d then become separated. The evidence just piles up
that radio communication, radar and light itself is that which comes
from particles ala Neutrinos and NOT from the formation of magnetic or
electrical waves. And that Einstein was correct in his assertion that
radiation held the key for the Universal laws of all the sciences of
nature.Later when Foucalt discovered "Eddy current" which he
associated with water eddy currents it then came into use as a non
destructive material measurement system together with use in aluminum
sorting in scrap yards which in essence is a macro demonstration of
particle presence in radiation., again a vindication that the Maxwell
addition was wrongly assumed a wave structure.
I won't comment on your following statements as it is lost on me why
you have quoted them and the point of stating them








Maxwell was a mathematician and a physicist who searched for things with
practical applications. In one of Maxwell`s lectures he said: "Now,
Professor Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, is not an
electrician who found out how to make a tin plate speak, but a speaker,
who to gain his private ends, has become an electrician."

Maxwell`s equations are adequate to solve all questions of radio waves
at once in place of a multitude of their predecessors. Art even agrees
they work as a basis for antenna programs in computers however he spells
computer. Using the tried and proven until something better comes along
is common sense.

From what i`ve seen, wave theory works well for large scale predictions
while the particle theory seems to work at the atomic scale. Too bad
Cern had an instantaneous multimillion dollar breakdown.

A.G. Bell produced the most valuable patent in history. What are the
results of the Unwin patents?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * *

Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 6, 2:38*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
JP wrote:

Skin depth and what cause it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_depth

The Wikipedia treatment is not incorrect, but it may create a false
impression that the skin effect is limited to some particular type or
cross-section of conductor.

There is a more general derivation by Davidson that has far fewer
restrictions about the assumed geometry. There is a scanned copy
at:http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek/misc/skin.htm

Davidson shows much more clearly that the existence of a skin effect
does not depend on any particular shape or size of conductor, or any
particular type of electrical circuit. If RF current is flowing in a
conductor - regardless of the reason - then the skin effect will be
present.

That is a very powerful conclusion. Because we know the skin effect will
be present, it helps us to trace the RF current pathways on complex
shapes such as coaxial cables and shielded loops.

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK * * * * 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom
(RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Thank you very much for the addition supplied. I never really
understood why hams could not accept this
From my point oif view the beauty of the Foulcalt or eddy current is
without this "pealing" on the chemical adhesion effect
that a particle has on a diamagnetic surface the ejected particle
would be without spin, and as such would not be able to have straight
line
projection within a gravitational field, a necessity for radiation.
Any book on wave guides will picture this eddy current on the inside
walls
and any book on non destructive testing will also corroberate its
presence
and yet it is still rejected by this group. When Maxwell inserted the
required units to achieve equilibrium per Newton it was the
mathematics that forcast
the presence of a levitation force that would not be identified for
several decades but stil ignored because of the dominance of wave
theory.
Cheers
Art

I only just read this reply.

NOTHING that I have said or referenced supports Art's ideas in any way.
His ideas are totally deluded.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

I only just read this reply.

NOTHING that I have said or referenced supports Art's ideas in any way.
His ideas are totally deluded.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

And he's been at it for several years now. I plonked him well over a year
ago. If everyone would stop paying him any attention and stop responding to
his BS, it wouldn't take him a month to go bother some other newsgroup that
would give him the audience he thinks he needs. We'd be far better off for
it. Art's a nut case. Face it and ignore him.

PLEASE!

W4ZCB