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 * *

On Dec 9, 3:39*pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
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.
I tthink you have to go back to the beginning of this thread as again
you are talking out of context.
My statement referes to the current path on a fractional waqve antenna
when it reaches the top.
My point was that the current then procedes to the INSIDE of the
radiator where the AC current cannot produce
an eddy current and thus the opposition to current flow in the centre
is just a copper loss i.e.resistance.
This statement was made in requesting a possible different current
path from the top of the radiator
that provided a lower resistive path. I.E I pointed out that the
impedance dropped linearly with respect to radiator length
and thus I wanted a mathematically demonstrated different path that
would counter my initial assertion.



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.

I think I have stated what skin depth is and what created it many
times so I won't respond
to the above paragraph




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.

I believe that the Wilkedia URL and Ian's supplied scanned page
is adequate descriptions where the initial supplied current is the sum
of the two currents in the circuit one of
which is Maxwells determination of displacement current i.e.a current
that displaces while providing an accelleration to PARTICLES (charges)
from the surface of a radiator.
If you can give an specific answer in mathematical form to the initial
question asked it would be apreciated
Other than that there is no need for continuation of this thread.





Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Art Unwin wrote:

Other than that there is no need for continuation of this thread.

There was no need to start it in the first place.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

Harold E. Johnson wrote:

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!

I don't normally read a single word from Art, so my original posting was
in response to someone else.

But when he claims I agree with him, that is more provocation than a man
can stand.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK

On Dec 10, 4:37*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
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

Ian
I never stated that you supported anything with respect to my ideas.
What you supplied with respect to skin effect was a coroberation of
the Wilkpedia definition which I stated WAS correct
also in the face of a statement that said otherwise. And I thanked you
for supplying it and no more. You may call me delusional as a sample
of free speech but you like the others have never
supplied an iota of evidence that shows that my ideas have zero merit
and thus are indulging in childish attacks.
I know that you posses the AO antenna computer program and feel very
comfortable with the fact that you are capable of putting in a one
liner that shows
that a radiator for maximum efficiency will be devoid of parallelism.
Unless you initially guide a antenna optimiser towards a planar design
the program will respond with a non planar design That is a fact and
is not delusional. Statements like that is no more than support for
the many talking heads.
This is a ideal place to point out once and for all a basic fact that
points to the feasability of my analysis.To deny or try to cover up
this computor fact with respect to the avoidance of a planar design
because of the addition to general laws by Maxwell is understandable
by those who do not have the means to challenge the books is
understandable but for you there is absolutely no excuse and shows a
dependence on emotion while at the same time pushing aside scientific
fact a fact that that is undeniable. A planar design is a
approximation with respect to Maxwells laws. A antenna omptimisation,
if allowed, will always respond with a NON planar design to conform
with all aspects provided by Maxwell's laws which I might add includes
the addition iof the "weak" force as suspected by Einstein.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.........XG (uk)

"Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message
news:RqO%k.418421$TT4.255567@attbi_s22...

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

but its so much fun to drag new details of his amazing jumping diamagnetic
neutrinos out of him!

Dave wrote:
"Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message
news:RqO%k.418421$TT4.255567@attbi_s22...
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

but its so much fun to drag new details of his amazing jumping diamagnetic
neutrinos out of him!



Mocking people like Art isn't my idea of fun.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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

but its so much fun to drag new details of his amazing jumping
diamagnetic neutrinos out of him!

Mocking people like Art isn't my idea of fun.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

I agree wholeheartedly. Before Art, did you get your jollys pulling the
wings off flies? Or just tripping folks who were trying to get around on a
pair of crutches?

W4ZCB