Art Unwin wrote:
... Have all the antenna computer programmers also died or
do they have a quiet distrust of their work with respect to Maxwell ?
Now we have the relevalation that Neutrinos DO actually have mass
obtained frtom the Sun which puts another nail in the coffin with
respect to waves.
Yes, American Universities deserve their failing grade.( Read Asimov
thoughts on present science teaching)
NEXT engineer scientist/rocket engineer or what ever

Art Unwin KB9MZ....,..,.xg (uk)

Actually, no, general programmers fill the planet, competition for work
is high ... well, perhaps better in china, india, etc. :-(

However, programmers "don't much" appreciate programs which play
horseshoes. We like EXACT answers, exact measurements and routines
which CONSISTENTLY return EXACT figures, dimensions, etc. ... in true
math there is but one answer, artists see things in gray, programmers in
black and white. When a program says, "Well, you start here, with this
measurement, and prune, or lengthen", or, "You start with this
capacitance (or inductance) and then adjust as necessary", I feel ill.

Example:

IF Pi X 3 = circumference ever fails (I expect it to be just as accurate
for a 1 inch circle as a 1 million mile one), or returns a "figure to
begin experimenting from", I will see it as only a guess also ... and
requiring an artist to deduce.

Antenna design parameters are a nightmare ... indeed, since that which
is not a science is an art--antenna design looks very much an art to me
.... or, at least mixed fields of discipline are required.

Now, one Art should recognize another art ... grin

And, I am done with this whole discussion, someday we will have accurate
tools to work with ... end of story.

Regards,
JS

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

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 8:09 pm, John Smith wrote:
I know of nobody familiar with the present antenna
programs who can explain the addition of the "'Weak force" that creats
arrays in equilibrium without a hint of parallelism or planar
construction. Have all the antenna computer programmers also died or
do they have a quiet distrust of their work with respect to Maxwell ?

nope, us programmers are perfectly happy, you on the other hand should
completely distrust any computer program modelling antennas out there...
NONE of them include the weak force, therefore they should not be trusted to
model your magical equilibrium antennas. you must go off and find a
different way to calculate your antenna patterns that does include the weak
force.

Now we have the relevalation that Neutrinos DO actually have mass
obtained frtom the Sun which puts another nail in the coffin with
respect to waves.

the only place that has been revealed is to your in your delusional dreams.
go publish that in a peer reviewed scientific journal and see how many cups
of coffee it gets you.

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

On Dec 6, 6:31*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Dec 5, 8:09 pm, John Smith wrote:

I know of nobody familiar with the present antenna
programs who can explain the addition of the "'Weak force" that creats
arrays in equilibrium without a hint of parallelism or planar
construction. Have all the antenna computer programmers also died or
do they *have a quiet distrust of their work with respect to Maxwell ?

nope, us programmers are perfectly happy, you on the other hand should
completely distrust any computer program modelling antennas out there...
NONE of them include the weak force, therefore they should not be trusted to
model your magical equilibrium antennas. *you must go off and find a
different way to calculate your antenna patterns that does include the weak
force.

Now we have the relevalation that Neutrinos DO actually have mass
obtained frtom the Sun which puts another nail in the coffin with
respect to waves.

the only place that has been revealed is to your in your delusional dreams.
go publish that in a peer reviewed scientific journal and see how many cups
of coffee it gets you.

No Siree, it has been several years that the idea of Neutrinos without
mass was squashed.
Two years ago it was again confirmed in experiments in Batavia,
Illinois. And ofcourse it gives CERN
its impetus for their current experiments in Switzerland
Pull yourself together David As for publishing academics require a
reference lists of quotes from other members of academia
and are loath to challenge prior papers and academics. Thus to be
published you must stay on the same track as others
with no going back for solid review. History shows that papers
supplied by non members of academia will never be accepted in their
life time.
That is why I say papers should be open source and open to challenge
from those outside academia.
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
That is why I say papers should be open source and open to challenge
from those outside academia.

go challenge anything you want... it sounds like you don't want or need to
reference any current papers since your theory goes against everything that
is accepted, so just publish away. you have a web site, put something on
there that is testable and see if anyone can prove it. or better yet, apply
for another patent with something useful and see if anyone buys it. your
magical levitating weak force neutrinos make for a good laugh now and then,
but are otherwise total fantasy until you can show the equations... and not
a single reputable publication will accept a paper from you without those
equations.

"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

Art wrote:
"So what exactly forces a time varying current to take an alternate
route of travel from the center of the conductor when the resistance is
so low compared to other routes that could be taken?"

Opposing ac current is total impedance, not just resistance.

The deepest fibers in a conductor are encircled by the largest number
magnetic flux linkages. These create a reactance which generates a
counter-emf opposing an imposed current. The deeper the depth inside a
conductor, the greater the opposition to the imposed current.

Look for "skin effect" in any edition of Terman and you will find
diagrams illustrating the various magnetic flux paths inside the
conductor which cause skin effect.

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 * *