On Jan 9, 7:10*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Skin-effect causes both currents, forward and reflected, to ride the
surface of the conductor.

Some quantum electrodynamics might help. The electrons
in the conductor are the carriers and move hardly at
all at RF frequencies where electrons can be thought of
as vibrating in place, absorbing and emitting photons.

It is those photons that move at the speed of light and
RF photons cannot travel *inside* a conductor. The cloud
of photons in the space surrounding the conductor is the
same thing as Maxwell's RF electromagnetic field which,
as we assume from conventional physics, cannot exist
deep inside a conductor because of skin-effect.

Seems to me the present argument results from the
confusion between DC steady-state which is electron
flow not involving RF photons and RF "steady-state"
which cannot exist without RF photons.

Photons, unlike electrons, do not have a charge and
thus do not repel each other. Any number of photons
can occupy the same volume including forward and
reflected photons which form the standing wave
surrounding the conductor.

Let's say we have two pieces of coax with a 'T'
connector in the middle. If we short the inside
conductor to the outside conductor on both ends
and apply RF, what would we measure at the
center conductor of the 'T' in the middle?
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
I wish I could debate with you one on one where there are no snide
remarkes put in place.
Unfortunately my training is as a mechanical engineer where as a ham I
have spread out somewhat into the electrical field and advancing via
the rules of Maxwell and the other masters.
When you move out further with the introduction of protons my eyes
glaze over because I know nothing of such things.
Now this discussion started off with Gauss laws on statics with me
which finally lead to a antenna program that vindicated my stance. It
was the Gaussian aproach that has produced the endless discussion. So
let us put the problem on its head and start with the computer
programs and work backwards. There are two types of antenna
programs.The first type is EZNEC that applies mathematics to pre
designed scenarious which via experience with the books revolve around
planar designes to which it will supply an aswer that one would expect
again via experience from the books and the user is very happy. The
other style of program is an extension of the first where the program
is empowered to modify input dimensions such that the input moves
towards a radiator
that meets the intention of Maxwells laws in their entirety. I use the
latter program where as non of the group will use this type favoring
the basic EZNEC program It is now where we find that it is the details
of the two programs come into evidence. Hams by virtue of their
knowledge and readings
WILL insert a planar design to find the resulting characteristics. On
the other hand I just insert a handfull of numbers and ask the program
to rearrange inserted figures to obtain a certain gain e.t.c.
I can do this as I know that the program based on Maxwells laws will
pursue a line for the best array that meets my request. Now this group
owning only the EZNEC will always insert for a vertical antenna a
design that is at right angles to earth with a specific length of
radiator just like the books they have and it will provide an answer
that the books would expect.
I on the other hand being a mechanical engineer use a program that is
known to reflect the laws of the masters thus it is natural for be to
insert various numbers with no real meaning and leave it to the
experts to rearrange it for the best orientation to meet my request.
So How do these approaches differ.
The group using the EZNEC style of program will input a vertical
antenna at right angles to the Earth wich follows conventional
thinking
I as a mechanical engineer does not assume anything and thus provides
the problem to the program to unravel ie. the numbers provided are
random with respect to orientation.
The results provided is always a vertical that is tipped away from
right angles with respect to Earth.
This presents a paradox two programs providing different results.
Those using the planar aproach and using EZNEC get an orientation that
one sees in the books where-as........
my program which has an optimiser ( the ability to change orientation
in line with Maxwells laws)
provides a orientation of a vertical that is tipped sand supplies
superior results to that of a planar design which it always over rules
in it search for best results.
So the problem is not that the eddy current creats the tipping.
The problem is that a program exists that supplies orientations that
are contrary to those that are generaly in the books used as
tutorial's. Thus the question is a very simple one.
On what grounds can we accept one program that supplies responses that
are not accounted for in tutorial books? One program supplies
solutions that exceed the values supplied by the other,
yet the other program when supplied with the final orientation of an
array or radiator that one program supplied will then show AGREEMENT
with the other program?
Now my reversion to first principles produces disagreement even tho an
alternative approach is not supplied. So as a mechanical engineer I
give the problem to the experts to which there is silence
and an unwilliness to change to an open mind.
So Cecil I presented the facts what two different antenna programs
used in the amateur antenna world supplies and ask, why should I NOT
trust programs that utelize an optimizer aproach based on the laws of
Maxwell and favor a program that use orientations that present
tutorial books supply? A simple question unimpaired by the theories of
particles etc which seems to be a source of annoyance.

My sincere regards
Art Unwin.......KB9MZ.....xg