On Dec 5, 8:09*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

Art

I expected someone to pop-in with an ultra-simplistic explanation, and
poof!; *Claim the problem explained ...

I myself pay enough attention that, I can see the point you make.
Indeed, anyone with even half-a-brain, interested in rf and having
worked with antennas in a hands-on reality, i.e., build rather than buy,
would have come across this enigma.

Real world example:

I have watched amateurs pump 1+KW into, what I consider, incredibly thin
elements/conductors (my math skills indicate current carrying capacity
of the wire is being vastly exceeded, at points/nodes.) *And, it has
struck me that I don't see this element vaporize at a current node!
Indeed, I don't even see a pronounced sag/heating/softening of such
elements ...

The simple/short explanation makes all our "antenna
prophetic/predicting" formulas and equations work ... the long
explanation is a bit more complex, me thinks ...

Regards,
JS

John., there are one or two who can provide the correct answer.
One is an old timer on this group from years ago who I believe is well
versed in RF
and has made a couple of postings lately. Funny thing is that when an
addition was made to electrical laws by Heaviside
and Maxwell it was just an addition to bring the laws into
equilibrium! Ofcourse, those units encompassed a formula well suited
for a displacement current.
However the idea of waves versus particles exist to this very day even
when Foucualt discovered the presence of a separate current that fit
the initial addition by Maxwell and searched for so long by Einstein
before abandoning classical physics and plunged it to relativism for
the answer on the understanding that the "weak force" was part and
parcel of radiation and a subset of an existing force. He died and
there is nobody left to apply authoritity to his thoughts. I can just
imagine what woild have happened if Einstein extended the static law
by making it a dynamic field which by its equivalent to Maxwell would
have placed particles and equilibrium firmly into radiation. Just
imagine Einstein having possesion of a computer program of today with
optimizer that excluded planar designs in the face of an array in
equilibrium. 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 ?
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)