|
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
I've been using 4Nec2, a freeware antenna modeling program based on
NEC-2 (Numerical Electromagnetic Code). I'm wondering if anyone could provide some insight as to just how it models current at the ends of wires that are not connected to anything (a.k.a. "free ends" or "open ends"). Does NEC-2 model "end caps" at free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are solid, or does it just set the current equal to zero at the free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are hollow? Is it possible that it does both, but the specific model is determined by the choice of computational kernel (extended vs. standard)? I've tried looking through some of the NEC-2 documentation, but I can't find a definitive answer. -Dave, K3WQ |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
wrote in message ... I've been using 4Nec2, a freeware antenna modeling program based on NEC-2 (Numerical Electromagnetic Code). I'm wondering if anyone could provide some insight as to just how it models current at the ends of wires that are not connected to anything (a.k.a. "free ends" or "open ends"). Does NEC-2 model "end caps" at free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are solid, or does it just set the current equal to zero at the free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are hollow? Is it possible that it does both, but the specific model is determined by the choice of computational kernel (extended vs. standard)? I've tried looking through some of the NEC-2 documentation, but I can't find a definitive answer. -Dave, K3WQ the only one who would care about that is art who believes that current flows back down the inside of the conductor. for the rest of us an end of a wire is an end of a wire... the difference in capacitance from a filled end to a hollow tube, unless the diameter of the hollow tube is a good fraction of a wavelength should be negligible. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Dave wrote:
the only one who would care about that is art who believes that current flows back down the inside of the conductor. for the rest of us an end of a wire is an end of a wire... the difference in capacitance from a filled end to a hollow tube, unless the diameter of the hollow tube is a good fraction of a wavelength should be negligible. Has anyone ever measured a difference between aluminum tubing and a solid aluminum rod at the end of an antenna? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote: the only one who would care about that is art who believes that current flows back down the inside of the conductor. for the rest of us an end of a wire is an end of a wire... the difference in capacitance from a filled end to a hollow tube, unless the diameter of the hollow tube is a good fraction of a wavelength should be negligible. Has anyone ever measured a difference between aluminum tubing and a solid aluminum rod at the end of an antenna? The rod is heavier. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 9:49*am, Dave wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Has anyone ever measured a difference between aluminum tubing and a solid aluminum rod at the end of an antenna? The rod is heavier. Yes, yes, the rod is heavier. Very funny, but could someone answer the original question. -Dave, K3WQ |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
wrote in message ... On Jan 3, 9:49 am, Dave wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Has anyone ever measured a difference between aluminum tubing and a solid aluminum rod at the end of an antenna? The rod is heavier. Yes, yes, the rod is heavier. Very funny, but could someone answer the original question. -Dave, K3WQ The current is close to zero- why would it make any difference? W4OP |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 9:33*am, "Dale Parfitt" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 3, 9:49 am, Dave wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Has anyone ever measured a difference between aluminum tubing and a solid aluminum rod at the end of an antenna? The rod is heavier. Yes, yes, the rod is heavier. *Very funny, but could someone answer the original question. -Dave, K3WQ The current is close to zero- why would it make any difference? W4OP Wrong.! The primary current is still flowing at the center. Particles occupy the surface of the inside and with the inter rejection of like particles produce a hoop stress between them which cannot be broken by a eddy current field, if present Thus the particles cannot be ejected even tho there is the primary ,current flow in the center ofr the tube. Remember. the presence of particles is cast in stone via the extension of the Gaussian law of statics. The presumption that the current is near zero is false until proven otherwise.. There is absolutely NO evidence that reflection occurs in any shape or form at the material ends of a radiator and all that pertains to such. PERIOD Art Unwin KB9MZ.........xg |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 08:31:30 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Has anyone ever measured a difference between aluminum tubing and a solid aluminum rod at the end of an antenna? Maybe Horace Lamb or Oliver Heaviside? Skin effect is dependent on frequency as well as the material, right? Is the thickness of the aluminum tubing significant at the frequency where you plan to use it? I missed the beginning of the thread, so what is the original question pertaining to? In any case, I believe the rod would be heavier. ; ) S.T.W. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Wrong.! I told you so! The primary current is still flowing at the center. Particles occupy the surface of the inside and with the inter rejection of like particles produce a hoop stress 'hoop stress' now there's a good term for particle interaction! between them which cannot be broken by a eddy current field, if present Thus the particles cannot be ejected even tho there is the primary ,current flow in the center ofr the tube. Remember. the presence of particles is cast in stone the stone in this case is art's brain. via the extension of the Gaussian law of statics. The presumption that the current is near zero is false until proven otherwise.. There is absolutely NO evidence that reflection occurs in any shape or form at the material ends of a radiator and all that pertains to such. PERIOD nah, just because i can measure it with my simple tdr here doesn't mean it happens... its all the magical mystery levitating neutrinos that cause all the fun. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 11:00*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Wrong.! I told you so! The primary current is still flowing at the center. Particles occupy the surface of the inside and with the inter rejection of like particles produce a hoop stress 'hoop stress' *now there's a good term for particle interaction! between them which cannot be broken by a *eddy current field, if present *Thus the particles cannot be ejected even tho there is the primary ,current flow in the center ofr the tube. Remember. the presence of particles is cast in stone the stone in this case is art's brain. via the extension of the Gaussian law of statics. The presumption that the current is near zero is false until proven otherwise.. There is absolutely NO evidence that reflection occurs in any shape or form at the material ends of a radiator and all that pertains to such. * *PERIOD nah, just because i can measure it with my simple tdr here doesn't mean it happens... its all the magical mystery levitating neutrinos that cause all the fun. David You should know better. Years ago I pointed out that the extension of the Gaussian law of static results in Maxwells laws with extension via mathematics. Before then I am sure that you were aware of magnostatic fields so it should not come as a surprize that the mathemetics is well proven. When the mathematics were presented before your very eyes you came up with reasons that defy the imagination and totally absurd You have the "field and waves" book by Ramo and Co so read it from end to end with a smidgeon of understanding so you may follow it from first principles. All the answers you seek are written in that book and they agree perfectly with mine. Nowhere does it confirm what you state that Statics have zero connection with magnetics which thus prevents mathematical connections. As for hoop stress that is another derivitation of Newtons laws of action and reaction and Newtons laws apply to the Universe including electromagnetics via the Standard Model which, by the way ,includes the Weak force that you also deny the presence of as well as the chemical critera. Your engineering ability is forcing your personal credability into the ground. Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
wrote in message ... I've been using 4Nec2, a freeware antenna modeling program based on NEC-2 (Numerical Electromagnetic Code). I'm wondering if anyone could provide some insight as to just how it models current at the ends of wires that are not connected to anything (a.k.a. "free ends" or "open ends"). Does NEC-2 model "end caps" at free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are solid, or does it just set the current equal to zero at the free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are hollow? Is it possible that it does both, but the specific model is determined by the choice of computational kernel (extended vs. standard)? I've tried looking through some of the NEC-2 documentation, but I can't find a definitive answer. -Dave, K3WQ This is covered in: http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf pp 11 - 12. Frank |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... You should know better. i do know better than you. Years ago I pointed out that the extension of the Gaussian law of static results in Maxwells laws with extension via mathematics. absolutely worthless since guass's law was already a part of maxwell's equations, your 'addition' was worthless. All the answers you seek are written in that book and they agree perfectly with mine. nowhere does it include the weak farce in the maxwell's equations, nor does it ever mention your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 9:33*am, "Frank" wrote:
wrote in message ... I've been using 4Nec2, a freeware antenna modeling program based on NEC-2 (Numerical Electromagnetic Code). I'm wondering if anyone could provide some insight as to just how it models current at the ends of wires that are not connected to anything (a.k.a. "free ends" or "open ends"). Does NEC-2 model "end caps" at free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are solid, or does it just set the current equal to zero at the free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are hollow? Is it possible that it does both, but the specific model is determined by the choice of computational kernel (extended vs. standard)? I've tried looking through some of the NEC-2 documentation, but I can't find a definitive answer. -Dave, K3WQ This is covered in:http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf pp 11 - 12. Frank Thanks, Frank, for shining some light into a dark corner. I appreciate having that whole document now, too. Cheers, Tom |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 11:40*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... You should know better. i do know better than you. Years ago I pointed out that the extension of the Gaussian law of static results in Maxwells laws with extension via mathematics. absolutely worthless since guass's law was already a part of maxwell's equations, your 'addition' was worthless. Oh My! The Gaussian law included was NOT the law of statics What sort of school did you attend? All the answers you seek are written in that book and they agree perfectly with mine. nowhere does it include the weak farce in the maxwell's equations, nor does it ever mention your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos. That is only because it is not fully up to date just like many other technical books including Terman The World has spent millions of dollars on the C.E.R.N. project in Switzerland to investigate neutrious, the weak force and the Higgs field. They have a home page on the net why not take a moment to read it so that you will become up to date? Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Oh My! The Gaussian law included was NOT the law of statics What sort of school did you attend? there is only one gauss's law that is included in maxwell's equations, please state your equation so i may poke more holes in it. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 11:33*am, "Frank" wrote:
wrote in message ... I've been using 4Nec2, a freeware antenna modeling program based on NEC-2 (Numerical Electromagnetic Code). I'm wondering if anyone could provide some insight as to just how it models current at the ends of wires that are not connected to anything (a.k.a. "free ends" or "open ends"). Does NEC-2 model "end caps" at free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are solid, or does it just set the current equal to zero at the free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are hollow? Is it possible that it does both, but the specific model is determined by the choice of computational kernel (extended vs. standard)? I've tried looking through some of the NEC-2 documentation, but I can't find a definitive answer. -Dave, K3WQ This is covered in:http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf pp 11 - 12. Frank Frank Please keep in mind the following NEC is based totally on the extremely thin wire where various assumption can be made such as equations being equal to zero in the limit., These same assumptions can not be held to when dealing with thick radiators despite the closeness of the approximations. Best regards Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 12:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 3, 11:33*am, "Frank" wrote: wrote in message .... I've been using 4Nec2, a freeware antenna modeling program based on NEC-2 (Numerical Electromagnetic Code). I'm wondering if anyone could provide some insight as to just how it models current at the ends of wires that are not connected to anything (a.k.a. "free ends" or "open ends"). Does NEC-2 model "end caps" at free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are solid, or does it just set the current equal to zero at the free ends, which is equivalent to assuming wires are hollow? Is it possible that it does both, but the specific model is determined by the choice of computational kernel (extended vs. standard)? I've tried looking through some of the NEC-2 documentation, but I can't find a definitive answer. -Dave, K3WQ This is covered in:http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf pp 11 - 12. Frank Frank Please keep in mind the following NEC is based totally on the *extremely thin wire where various assumption can be made such as equations being equal to zero in the limit., These same assumptions can not be held to when dealing with thick radiators despite the closeness of the approximations. Best regards Art Calculus is based on homogenous materials or planes where you can refer dy/dx to some thing aproaching zero. In the case of using this aproach where the antenna diameter aproaches zero this is an invalid aproach for accuracy but O.K. for aproximations. So much for the foibles of theoretical mathematics. The vanishing thin radiator cannot be applied directly to a non homogenous material because at the limits of the the diameter is unable to support the presence of eddy currents(skin depth) . In other words the assumption of limi tess ness cannot be held if the presence of skin effect is true. Ofcourse if skin effect is not present then you have a DC current where only copper losses are present. As always with mathematics assumptions and preconditions are alway subject to examination. This in no way takes away from the advantages oif the NEC programs. Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Frank
Please keep in mind the following NEC is based totally on the extremely thin wire where various assumption can be made such as equations being equal to zero in the limit., These same assumptions can not be held to when dealing with thick radiators despite the closeness of the approximations. Best regards Art The reference at http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf p 21 deals with the accuracey of NEC 2 in respect to the "Thin wire approximation". From the NEC-4, theory manual, p 21, para 4: ".... the NEC-4 wire model employes the extended boundary condition in the thin wire approximation, so that the current is treated as a tubular distribution on the wire surface......." Calculus is based on homogenous materials or planes where you can refer dy/dx to some thing aproaching zero. In the case of using this aproach where the antenna diameter aproaches zero this is an invalid aproach for accuracy but O.K. for aproximations. So much for the foibles of theoretical mathematics. Your comments about calculus are confusing. A derivative is always non-zero -- unless you are differentiating a constant. The homogeneity, or otherwise, of a material is irrelevant to the process of differentiation. The vanishing thin radiator cannot be applied directly to a non homogenous material because at the limits of the the diameter is unable to support the presence of eddy currents(skin depth) . In other words the assumption of limi tess ness cannot be held if the presence of skin effect is true. Most conductors are homogeneous. In fact I cannot think of a non-homogeneous conductor. Even in plated conductors the current flows in the plating. Of course if skin effect is not present then you have a DC current where only copper losses are present. As always with mathematics assumptions and preconditions are alway subject to examination. This in no way takes away from the advantages oif the NEC programs. Art Copper loss still exists for high frequency currents. 73, Frank |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 2:44*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Frank Please keep in mind the following NEC is based totally on the extremely thin wire where various assumption can be made such as equations being equal to zero in the limit., These same assumptions can not be held to when dealing with thick radiators despite the closeness of the approximations. Best regards Art The reference athttp://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf*p 21 deals with the accuracey of NEC 2 in respect to the "Thin wire approximation". From the NEC-4, theory manual, p 21, para 4: ".... the NEC-4 wire model employes the extended boundary condition in the thin wire approximation, so that the current is treated as a tubular distribution on the wire surface......." Calculus is based on homogenous materials or planes where you can refer dy/dx to some thing aproaching zero. In the case of using this aproach where the antenna diameter aproaches zero this is an invalid aproach for accuracy but O.K. for aproximations. So much for the foibles of theoretical mathematics. Your comments about calculus are confusing. *A derivative is always non-zero -- unless you are differentiating a constant. The homogeneity, or otherwise, of a material is irrelevant to the process of differentiation. That is exactly my point. The skin is not hogenoius even if you consider the resistive action to be constant in depth thus you cannot put a limit on the thicknes or diameter of the radiator! If you do put a limit anyway on skin depth then you cannot apply the reasoning to a hollow tube. We can talk back and forwards for ever on the analogy provided with vanishingly thin radiators but until we break apart the mathematics such that there is a reflection at the end of a radiator the posters question cannot be answered. If one is to model the situation as Cecil suggests we must first determine how and where the reflection is created and the applied math provided to support it. I can see no reference via mathematics that shows the reversal or reflection of current flow prior to the end of a cycle.If there were such an instance then there must be a determination of the resistance radiation or otherwise so that any assumption made is factual. The vanishing thin radiator cannot be applied directly to a non homogenous material because at the limits of the *the diameter is unable to support the presence of eddy currents(skin depth) . In other words the assumption of limi tess ness cannot be held if the presence of skin effect is true. Most conductors are homogeneous. *In fact I cannot think of a non-homogeneous conductor. *Even in plated conductors the current flows in the plating. No that is not true as homogenous implies equilibrium and for skin depth the value (e) comes into beingor what so0me would refer to as decay Of course if skin effect is not present then you have a DC current where only copper losses are present. As always with mathematics assumptions and preconditions are alway subject to examination. This in no way takes away from the advantages oif the NEC programs. Art Copper loss still exists for high frequency currents. Very true Frank but the radiation resistance plus the resistance encoutered by surface flow is not related/ proportional to the pure copper losses where skin resistance is not present where in the absence of skin depth leaves one with DC pulses. I am ofcourse still interested what the NEC programs show for reflection and consequental resistance which I believe was in Cecil's thoughts to determine the truth. Hopefully the dialogue between you and I will not drop to the level of David's where he contendes that Gaussian law of STATICS is one of the basic laws that Maxwell applied/used without the required proof..On top of which he denies the applicability of statics with electro magnetics thus any mathematical aproach cannot be applicable which is absolutely crazy The thrust of this thread is solely on the difference of radiation with respect to hollow radiators and solid radiators and it should be kept at that to provide a reasonable answer as required in any formal debate. 73, *Frank |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 3, 2:44 pm, "Frank" wrote: David's where he contendes that Gaussian law of STATICS is one of the basic laws that Maxwell applied/used without the required proof..On top of which he denies the applicability of statics with electro magnetics thus any mathematical aproach cannot be applicable which is absolutely crazy well art, here is your proof, from the same ramo whinnery and van duzer book you like to quote.... compare equation (2) in section 2.09 with equation (1) in section 4.07. note there is no time in either one of them... and section 2 is specifically about stationary fields, while sectino 4 is maxwell's equations. only 2 of maxwell's equations actually are about time varying fields, those are Faraday's law and Ampere's law. The other two are Gauss's law taken straight from the static case, and the equivalent for magnetic flux... both of which are time invarient. The thrust of this thread is solely on the difference of radiation with respect to hollow radiators and solid radiators and it should be kept at that to provide a reasonable answer as required in any formal debate. the only thing hollow about this debate is your head. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 4:56*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 3, 2:44 pm, "Frank" wrote: David's where he contendes that Gaussian law of STATICS is one of the basic laws that Maxwell applied/used without the required proof..On top of which he denies the applicability of statics with electro magnetics thus any mathematical aproach cannot be applicable which is absolutely crazy well art, here is your proof, from the same ramo whinnery and van duzer book you like to quote.... compare equation (2) in section 2.09 with equation (1) in section 4.07. note there is no time in either one of them... and section 2 is specifically about stationary fields, while sectino 4 is maxwell's equations. *only 2 of maxwell's equations actually are about time varying fields, those are Faraday's law and Ampere's law. *The other two are Gauss's law taken straight from the static case, and the equivalent for magnetic flux... both of which are time invarient. The thrust of this thread is solely on the difference of radiation with respect to hollow radiators and solid radiators and it should be kept at that to provide a reasonable answer as required in any formal debate. the only thing hollow about this debate is your head. David I bought that book because you refered to it some time ago where you misrepresented what you alluded to and now you are doing it again. In your method of reading did the law that a radiator can be any shape, size or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium? I can't conceive that a mathematition of Maxwells staturer could have missed that observation if as you say he extended gaussian law of statics. Perhaps you have an answer for that also of the back of your head. Your positions continue to be absurd from an engineering point of view and nobody as yet has confirmed your position and what is really wierd none have denied Art |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... I bought that book because you refered to it some time ago where you misrepresented what you alluded to and now you are doing it again. misrepresented??? its right in the book, compare those two formula, are they not the same? is not guass's law, which is a time invarient equation directly in maxwell's equations?? In your method of reading did the law that a radiator can be any shape, size or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium? if you can find where 'equilibrium' is a required condition in maxwell's equations, give me the reference in the book. otherwise you are out of equilibrium. I can't conceive that a mathematition of Maxwells staturer could have missed that observation if as you say he extended gaussian law of statics. Perhaps you have an answer for that also of the back of your head. sure, he didn't 'extend' it... he used it verbatum as the book shows. there is no need to 'extend' it, its a perfectly good law as it is stated and has been for many years. our positions continue to be absurd from an engineering point of view and nobody as yet has confirmed your position and what is really wierd none have denied because they are enjoying laughing at your absurd positions as much as i am! |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 5:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... I bought that book because you refered to it some time ago where you misrepresented what you alluded to and now you are doing it again. misrepresented??? *its right in the book, compare those two formula, are they not the same? *is not guass's law, which is a time invarient equation directly in maxwell's equations?? In your method of reading did the law that a radiator can be any shape, size or elevation as long as it is in equilibrium? if you can find where 'equilibrium' is a required condition in maxwell's equations, give me the reference in the book. *otherwise you are out of equilibrium. I can't conceive that a mathematition of Maxwells staturer could have missed that observation if as you say he extended gaussian law of statics. Perhaps you have an answer for that also of the back of your head. sure, he didn't 'extend' it... he used it verbatum as the book shows. *there is no need to 'extend' it, its a perfectly good law as it is stated and has been for many years. our positions continue to be absurd from an engineering point of view and nobody as yet has confirmed your position and what is really wierd none have denied because they are enjoying laughing at your absurd positions as much as i am! Oh My Do you really believe that you are talking on behalf of the masses? When Dr Davis of M.I.T. said contrary to the thinking of this group that Gauss's law of statics when extended, as I stated, is mathematically the equal to Maxwells laws as per Maxwells correction. Many a post has been written since that day castigating the very idea of equivalence to Maxwell,w even questioning the propriety of the mathematics. So far nobody has concurred with Dr Davis with respect to the math that he presented. You David stated that the mathematical stance taken was illegal because there is no connection with respect to statics ! David you have no credability as anyone who owns a copy of that book can easily confirm for themselves..Just look at what you now have stated that you have found the connection ( tho I doubt it) with respect to Statics. Ofcourse if somebody wants to debate your statement on your behalf I will be happy to refute what you say page by page. Until then the book stays on the shelf because of past experiences with your statements. In Maxwells time he was given credit for what appeared as proof of the wave theory even to the point of extrapolating same to light because of the "c" property in his correction which he obtained by ensuring compliance to Newtons law with respect to equilibrium. It was decades before Foucalt came along with his discovery of a field that matched the Maxwell correction where prior to there was none. Now we can debunk the wave theory as the particle is now in stone Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg (uk) |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Many a post has been written since that day castigating the very idea of equivalence to Maxwell,w even questioning the propriety of the mathematics. So far nobody has concurred with Dr Davis with respect to the math that he presented. You David stated that the mathematical stance taken was illegal i said that his addition of 't' to the equation was unnecessary since the law already applies for all time. and it is a perfectly good static law as it is, and that is how it is applied in maxwell's equations already. you have failed completely to show any good reason why maxwell's equations, as published in so many places and used for so many years, are not complete and correct as they are. you keep handwaving and trying to add in the weak farce and your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos with no mathematical support... just a lot of handwaving and bloviating. but don't let me stop you, i enjoy the rants and off the wall pronouncements, keep it up, its great fun to watch! |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 4, 10:35*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Many a post has been written since that day castigating the very idea of equivalence to Maxwell,w even questioning the propriety of the mathematics. So far nobody has concurred with Dr Davis with respect to the math that he presented. You David stated that the mathematical stance taken was illegal i said that his addition of 't' to the equation was unnecessary since the law already applies for all time. *and it is a perfectly good static law as it is, and that is how it is applied in maxwell's equations already. *you have failed completely to show any good reason why maxwell's equations, as published in so many places and used for so many years, are not complete and correct as they are. *you keep handwaving and trying to add in the weak farce and your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos with no mathematical support... just a lot of handwaving and bloviating. *but don't let me stop you, i enjoy the rants and off the wall pronouncements, keep it up, its great fun to watch! My positions I have never said that Maxwells laws with correction is incorrect. Period The correction added was the weak force as dictated by Newtons laws on equilibrium Foucoults discovery of eddy currents solidified the addition of Maxwells correction By additins to Gaussian law of statics to make it a dynamic field is equal to the Laws of Maxwell thus justifying the presence of particals instead of waves Dr Davis provided the mathematics to show that the extension to Gauss equals Maxwells laws Antenna programs by adhering to Maxwells laws include the four std forces one of which is the weak force This group as a unit denied the viability of what was presented The above is proven via optimizer programs that result in tipped verticle radiators Computer programs based on MoM provide a closer approximation with respect to radiation than designs of planar designs because they utelise the existance of the weak force. Laws of continuity do not apply to fractional radiators as closed a circuit is provided by current flow thru the center There is no basis for introducing reflections from the end of a radiator which has sporned a illigitamate science of it's own Nobody to my knoweledge has pointed to the Gaussian law of statics to supplant the presence of waves with that of particles which also extends to light Eddy currents use is shown universally as a levitating force on diamagnetic materials a methos used in sorting materials in scrap recovery yards. Neutrinos / particles have an accepted appearance on this Earth via migration from the Sun and which does contain mass. Now David the above brings you back to the reality and not your wandering, there is no hand waving ! If you wish to be specific about a particular point or add a statement that you wish to be added to the above as pointing to a basic difference in the facts then be my guest. This newsgroup is intended for the discussion of antennas and radiation a position I respect. I recognise that with the above statements I am overturning facts that are presently accepted where all the statements is a continuity of showing that the law of statics when made into a arbritary dynamic field in equilibrium provides for the addition of equilibrium and particles together with particle spin provided by the action of the weak force in the science of radiation Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg (uk) |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 4, 10:35 am, "Dave" wrote: the summary of the complete idiocy snipped the one true thing he said: Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg (uk) art, take all that, get it published in any journal on physics or electromagnetics and i'll nominate you for the nobel prize! |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 4, 12:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
If you wish to be specific about a particular point... There is no basis for introducing reflections from the end of a radiator... _______________ Specifically, Art, then how do you explain the result shown in the link below? The reflection seen there is not imaginary, It is the result of a good, but not perfect termination by a UHF TV transmit antenna to about 1,500 feet of 75 ohm transmission line. http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...easurement.gif RF |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 4, 1:34*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Jan 4, 12:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote: If you wish to be specific about a particular point... There is no basis for introducing reflections from the end of a radiator... _______________ Specifically, Art, then how do you explain the result shown in the link below? The reflection seen there is not imaginary, *It is the result of a good, but not perfect termination by a UHF TV transmit antenna to about 1,500 feet of 75 ohm transmission line. http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...easurement.gif RF You can send me a private e mail if you wish, but if you have a problem that you need adressing then make a separate thread/posting to the group as a whole with a suitable title relative to what you want to be addressed. For myself I am not in your employ thus I am not required to follow your demands I am sure your requirements for an auguement can be addressed by you in joining other threads Art Unwin KB9MZ |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 4, 1:26*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 4, 10:35 am, "Dave" wrote: the summary of the complete idiocy snipped the one true thing he said: Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg * (uk) art, take all that, get it published in any journal on physics or electromagnetics and i'll nominate you for the nobel prize! I just wanted to clear the field with respect to your wanderings from what has been actually said by me to establish the true basis of your attacks. That is why I have restated again my position to combat your lies. It is your idea that I should publish it not mine. I am happy to supply a record of my work and will supply more as I procede. It is not necessary to me to get aproval of what I present but I am willing to debate possible errors in my work as long as it is directly to the point and not as a basis for mocking. This action is what I call a matter of sharing my work to provide a difference viewpoint with respect to radiation. Initially it was demanded of me to supply the math and this has been done by another person independently of any input from me. As a doctor working for M.I.T I feel he is qualified enough on the subject such that he deserved a hearing as well as a certain respect. As yet nobody has shown any reason why the mathematics should not be accepted so until that point comes about my work stands Art Unwin KB9MZ |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 4, 2:56*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:34*pm, Richard Fry wrote: Specifically, Art, then how do you explain the result shown in the link below? I am not in your employ thus I am not required to follow your demands. _________ Yet you challenge others to respond to your posts here, when probably none is in your employ. Your evasion of comment on r.r.a.a. to what I posted has the strong likelihood that either you didn't comprehend the meaning of the test report in my link, or that you did, and want to avoid the fact that it proves your belief about reflections to be invalid. RF |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... As a doctor working for M.I.T I feel he is qualified enough on the subject such that he deserved a hearing as well as a certain respect. then get him to come back and explain himself, you obviously can't understand what he was talking about if he is that far above you. As yet nobody has shown any reason why the mathematics should not be accepted so until that point comes about my work stands you haven't shown any math that could be disproven... besides adding one 't' to an equation that didn't need it. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 4, 3:54*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... As a doctor working for M.I.T I feel he is qualified enough on the subject such that he deserved a hearing as well as a certain respect. then get him to come back and explain himself, you obviously can't understand what he was talking about if he is that far above you. As yet nobody has shown any reason why the mathematics should not be accepted so until that point comes about my work stands you haven't shown any math that could be disproven... besides adding one 't' to an equation that didn't need it. You are welcome to your opinion! To change my thoughts how ever you need to provide fact that specifically address what I state as what is untrue. If you can't be specific in providing relavent discussion then I am comfortable with what I have found. I would love to read something that addresses my findings that prove them to be in error so I may rethink my position, a position that any engineer should be happy to do rather than throwing things to hurt. I have made no effort to hide my identity as the owner of the stated thoughts. The foundation of my work is the elargement of a static law to make it a dynamic field in accordance with the laws of Maxwell. Since you and others have rejected the feasability of that aproach as well as the accompanying math I see no reason why you should pursue me! I agree to disagree, what is so wrong with that? Art I am open to changing my mind if proven in error but the fact is that all I get is diversions to discuss at the behest of other posters |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Art wrote:
"I recognise that with the above atatements I am overturning facts that are accepted where all the statements is a continuity of showing that the law of statics when made into a arbitrary dynamic field in equilibrium provides of equilibrium and particles together with particle spin provided by the action of the weak force in the science of radiation." Bafflegab! Who needs it? Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar on page 2 of "Introduction To Electromagnetic Fields": "In 1864, Maxwell proposed "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" and thus unified the experimental researches of over a century through a set of equations known as Maxwell`s equations. These equations were later verified experimentally by Hertz in 1887. It is generally accepted that all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena are governed by Maxwell`s equations." No corrections or addenda are needed. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 4, 4:44*pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "I recognise that with the above atatements I am overturning facts that are accepted where all the statements is a continuity of showing that the law of statics when made into a arbitrary dynamic field in equilibrium provides of equilibrium and particles together with particle spin provided by the action of the weak force in the science of radiation." Bafflegab! Who needs it? Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar on page 2 of "Introduction To Electromagnetic Fields": "In 1864, Maxwell proposed "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" and thus unified the experimental researches of over a century through a set of equations known as Maxwell`s equations. These equations were later verified experimentally by Hertz in 1887. It is generally accepted that all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena are governed by Maxwell`s equations." No corrections or addenda are needed. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * Bull. Maxwell made an addition to the laws provided. It was this addition he was lauded for. The addition he made was to bring the formula suplied to him for condensing by justifying the = sign which is required for mathematics to show equilibrium exists and Newtons law was being followed. What he did was to ensure that all the units designated added up to zero. To do this he added the Maxwell correction which he named as the displacement current now designated as the root of skin depth resistance. It was decades later that Foucault found a match that satisfied the metrics that Maxwell addedto satify the requirements of mathematics. Maxwell supplied no evidence of experimentation of his own at that time and was functioning as a mathematician in the condensing of laws established by others via experimentation ,. the majority of which were seen to be duplicates. I have read nothing that disputes the above account tho the lack of communication during those times suggest that it was others like Heaviside and Green and many others were the owners of various discoveries such that arrangements were changed to disguise theft. This same problem is still occuring in academia where a scientist was laid off after a discovery he made and the remaining two scientists took ownership of this years Nobel prize.. Some books condense this history by ommision but these acts do not rewrite history or apply redactions to the white paper he wrote that still exists.Now Richard, if your posting was made to suggest something else you are welcome to respond. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Art wrote:
"Bull." Maxwell published and his equations have been successfully used ever since. My ARRL Antenna Book says in its chapter on "Computer Programs": "The availability of computers in the 1960s provided antenna designers with an alternative. They could develop software to simulate the performance of antennas. In general, these techniques either numerically solve Maxwell`s equations by discretizing the problem using intergral techniques such as Moment Methods (MOM) as discussed in Sec. 14-11, or differential techniques such as finite elements or finite difference-time domain." Is the "Antenna Book" bull too? Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 5, 11:06*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Art wrote: "Bull." Maxwell published and his equations have been successfully used ever since. My ARRL Antenna Book says in its chapter on "Computer Programs": "The availability of computers in the 1960s provided antenna designers with an alternative. They could develop software to simulate the performance of antennas. In general, these techniques either numerically solve Maxwell`s equations by discretizing the problem using intergral techniques such as Moment Methods (MOM) as discussed in Sec. 14-11, or differential techniques such as finite elements or finite difference-time domain." Is the "Antenna Book" bull too? Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI O.K. you win. Maxwell never did add the correction factor later to be known as the displacement factor. It is not known how that addition came about as Gauss Faraday and others never included it in their findings It is known however, that the name assigned to this addition was by Maxwell while others were watching T.V. Obviously somebody had sneaked in an addition to the supplied data while others were engrossed on the T.V. as the football game was ongoing. Maxwell and computer programs were not mentioned at that time nor was the ARRL handbook, these came about much later where the antenna was viewed as a vanishingly thin radiator where the inside diameter was too small to non existent because of the skin depth that met each other from both side thus cutting of passage of anything from the top of a radiator. Because of the reflection created by the thin radiator the current refersed direction and travelled down much faster as the circular fiels now aided the flow of current instead of resisting it like it did on the upward direction. Richard, right on. You have got it right without a doubt. I am now convinced. Presumably you are happy now you have been vindicated and can now put your pen and pencil down. |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
Art wrote:
"You have got it right eithout a doubt. I am now convinced." Iappreciate the concession. Maxwell by most accounts richly deserves the credit he won. I received over a dozen books for Christmas all on electromagnetism. I am trying to become familiar with them. One of the group is, "The Holistic Inspirations of Physics" by Val Duser. Chapter 18 is titled: "Maxwell, Field Theory, and Mechanical Models". On page 274 it says: "In the history of the rise of the concept of the electromagnetic field, James Clerk Maxwell holds pride of place. Maxwell`s equations of electromagnetism are a part of classical physics least modified by the introduction of twentieth century theories. Maxwell`s equations trumped both Newtonian mechanics and classical thermodynamics in the formulation of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Einstein modified Newton`s laws of motion in order to preserve Maxwell`s equations in special relativity. Max Planck modified the laws of dlassical thermodynamics (making energy discrete rather than continuous) to preserve Maxwell`s theory of radiation in early quantum theory." There`s more but I`ll not bore more. Read the book. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
|
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
On Jan 3, 10:37*am, Art Unwin wrote:
There is absolutely NO evidence that reflection occurs in any shape or form at the material ends of a radiator and all that pertains to such. * *PERIOD. ____________ Art, the link below leads to empirical proof that such reflections exist. H. Gihring and G. Brown of RCA measured the relative current distribution parallel to the axis of monopole radiators of several lengths and widths, using an r-f current probe driving a thermal meter. The current distribution measured for the three radiator lengths plotted all show the presence of reflections from the top of the vertical wire, and in all three cases, current falls to zero at the end of the radiator. These are all fractional wavelength radiators not meeting your definition of an antenna in "equilibrium." This demonstrates that r-f current does not travel on the outside of a wire on the way to the open end, and return from the open end along a non-radiating path down the center of that conductor, as you believe. http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...reAntennas.gif RF |
Does NEC-2 model wires as solid or hollow?
"Richard Fry" wrote in message ... On Jan 3, 10:37 am, Art Unwin wrote: There is absolutely NO evidence that reflection occurs in any shape or form at the material ends of a radiator and all that pertains to such. PERIOD. Art, the link below leads to empirical proof that such reflections exist. don't confuse him with facts, especially facts out of books... they are all out of date since they don't have his latest theories included in them. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com