Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Frank,
It has not yet been proven that current does not flow thru the center
of a radiator.

I thought I did prove it at:
http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpr...in%20depth.htm
Or are you saying that the developers of FEM software at Ansoft,
CST Microwave, and many others do not know what they
are doing? FEM software (and NEC) has been verified countless
times experimentally. Are you saying that nobody knows how to
use test equipment. Check out the testimonials for CST at:
https://www.cst.com/Content/Company/Testimonials.aspx
In fact there is a procedure that will measure the distribution
of current through a cylindrical conductor.

I see it as a manufactured statement to satisfy the idea of an
uncompleted circuit where the current
passes over or thru and in a different direction than the same current
that generates its existence !
It does all this where the books state it is a series circuit where
the paths taken by the current are not identical. Why manufacture all
these happenings to prove what is just a theory, while at the same
time destroying the reasoning of a closed circuit without an
explanation how such actions
creat radiation, especially when it is admitted that radiation is not
fully understood?

It sounds like you are confusing this with a DC circuit.

I think the time as come to review again from the time of Maxwell and
build up afresh in line with
a century of findings and then re evaluate.
A good start would be to evaluate why antenna programs based on
Maxwells laws provide solutions based on equilibrium while discarding

How do you know the programs are based on "Equilibrium"? --
Whatever that means. Can you provide any mathematical or
experimental evidence. Since you have admitted you do not
understand high school math how can you possibly make such
statements.

all other designs. Saying that it can't be! Because" "if true it
would have been discovered a 100 years ago" while silently adding "all
is known about antennas and the patent offices should be closed".

Judging by the "IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation"
nobody thinks all is known about antennas.


Regards
Art

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 15, 7:31*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Frank,
It has not yet been proven that current does not flow thru the center
of a radiator.

I thought I did prove it at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpr...in%20depth.htm
Or are you saying that the developers of FEM software at Ansoft,
CST Microwave, and many others do not know what they
are doing? *FEM software (and NEC) has been verified countless
times experimentally. *Are you saying that nobody knows how to
use test equipment. *Check out the testimonials for CST at:https://www.cst.com/Content/Company/Testimonials.aspx
In fact there is a procedure that will measure the distribution
of current through a cylindrical conductor.

I see it as a manufactured statement to satisfy the idea of an
uncompleted circuit where the current
passes over or thru and in a different direction than the same current
that generates its existence !
It does all this where the books state it is a series circuit where
the paths taken by the current are not identical. Why manufacture all
these happenings to prove what is just a theory, while at the same
time destroying the reasoning of a closed circuit without an
explanation how such actions
creat radiation, especially when it is admitted that radiation is not
fully understood?

It sounds like you are confusing this with a DC circuit.

I think the time as come to review again from the time of Maxwell and
build up afresh in line with
a century of findings and then re evaluate.
A good start would be to evaluate why antenna programs based on
Maxwells laws provide solutions based on equilibrium while discarding

How do you know the programs are based on "Equilibrium"? --
Whatever that means. *Can you provide any mathematical or
experimental evidence. *Since you have admitted you do not
understand high school math how can you possibly make such
statements.

all other designs. Saying that it can't be! *Because" "if true it
would have been discovered a 100 years ago" while silently adding "all
is known about antennas and the patent offices should be closed".

Judging by the "IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation"
nobody thinks all is known about antennas.

Regards
Art

I thought it would be better to accept the responses of the news group
as factual.
Now I must determine why equilibrium is not understood as this is a
requirement
for any radiator vector diagram. I have quite a lot of books that were
recommended
reading in US Universities so I will read thru those for what they say
about equilibrium and why it has been dumped or if Newtons laws have
been corrected e.t.c. Without an understanding of equilibrium all
physics as I know it falls apart!. Thus a chasm is in place between me
and the group and I have to search for the reason.


Thanks to all for your inputs
Art

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

I thought it would be better to accept the responses of the
news group as factual. Now I must determine why
equilibrium is not understood as this is a requirement for
any radiator vector diagram.

It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by
the term: "Radiator vector diagram".

I have quite a lot of books that were recommended reading
in US Universities so I will read thru those for what they say
about equilibrium........

I have 9 books on electromagnetics and antennas. The word
"Equiblibrium" does not appear in any of the indexes.

......and why it has been dumped or if Newtons laws have
been corrected e.t.c. Without an understanding of equilibrium all
physics as I know it falls apart!. Thus a chasm is in place between me
and the group and I have to search for the reason.

There has been no correction to Newtonian mechanics, and there
is no violation of Newton's laws in electromagnetics.

As for reading books on electromagnetics. I cannot understand how
it is possible without knowledge of math. Do you understand any
of the following?: line integral, surface integral, volume integral,
vector "dot" product, vector "cross" product, gradient, divergence,
curl, "Del", and vector magnetic potential. With these tools
it is possible to calculate the E and H fields at a point in space --
based on an assumption of current distribution. The hard part
of computational electromagnetics is to determine the actual
current distribution on a radiator.

Thanks to all for your inputs
Art

73,

Frank

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 16, 12:18*pm, "Frank" wrote:
I thought it would be better to accept the responses of the
news group as factual. *Now I must determine why
equilibrium is not understood as this is a requirement for
any radiator vector diagram.

It would be interesting to know exactly what you mean by
the term: "Radiator vector diagram".

I have quite a lot of books that were recommended reading
in US Universities so I will read thru those for what they say
about equilibrium........

I have 9 books on electromagnetics and antennas. *The word
"Equiblibrium" does not appear in any of the indexes.

......and why it has been dumped or if Newtons laws have
been corrected e.t.c. *Without an understanding of equilibrium all
physics as I know it falls apart!. Thus a chasm is in place between me
and the group and I have to search for the reason.

There has been no correction to Newtonian mechanics, and there
is no violation of Newton's laws in electromagnetics.

As for reading books on electromagnetics. *I cannot understand how
it is possible without knowledge of math. *Do you understand any
of the following?: *line integral, surface integral, volume integral,
vector "dot" product, vector "cross" product, gradient, divergence,
curl, "Del", and vector magnetic potential. *With these tools
it is possible to calculate the E and H fields at a point in space --
based on an assumption of current distribution. *The hard part
of computational electromagnetics is to determine the actual
current distribution on a radiator.

Thanks to all for your inputs
Art

73,

Frank



Frank
As I said earlier, I accept the thought of forward and reverse flow
of AC current together with the resulting contra flow of Eddy currents
on different levels of the surface of a radiator, all at the same
time. Thus at this time there is no pressing reason to expose myself
further in terms of the education that I have retained. Now that
Richard's book has substantiated my aproach via Gauss
I can now procede in the direction of antennas that are not in a
straight line and at varying elevations. Programs on antennas are
available for the user to follow this cause of action which are
committed to Maxwells laws so these efforts will not resolve around my
personal thoughts, just arrays that are termed in equilibrium and the
existance of particles with respect to radiation.
From the very start, when I extended Gaussian law of statics to that
of Maxwell, I have sought council to the effect that consequent
determinations prove the action of particles. Postings pretty much
accept that antenna programs are correct thus I can realistically use
that as a proof.
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought
especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not
accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:18 pm, "Frank" wrote:
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought

thats good, because nobody on here does.

especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not

'equilibrium' is neither required nor a desired part of Gauss's law... which
as i have pointed out has been a part of maxwell's equations since the very
beginning, without any help from you.

accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)

good, go after the cantennas... and don't forget the vent hole to let the
levitating neutrinos escape when they reach the end of the diamagnetic
resistor... the can is probably ferromagnetic so they'll be trapped inside
and explode otherwise!

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:18 pm, "Frank" wrote:
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought

thats good, because nobody on here does.

especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not

'equilibrium' is neither required nor a desired part of Gauss's law...
which as i have pointed out has been a part of maxwell's equations since
the very beginning, without any help from you.

accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)

good, go after the cantennas... and don't forget the vent hole to let the
levitating neutrinos escape when they reach the end of the diamagnetic
resistor... the can is probably ferromagnetic so they'll be trapped inside
and explode otherwise!


--------

In a millenium, folks will look back and view Art as their EMR guru. He was
the first to advocate Zen EMR Theory to the unwashed. No offense to anyone
is intended.

Ed, N2ECW

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 15, 7:31*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Frank,
It has not yet been proven that current does not flow thru the center
of a radiator.

I thought I did prove it at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpr...in%20depth.htm
Or are you saying that the developers of FEM software at Ansoft,
CST Microwave, and many others do not know what they
are doing? *FEM software (and NEC) has been verified countless
times experimentally. *Are you saying that nobody knows how to
use test equipment. *Check out the testimonials for CST at:https://www.cst.com/Content/Company/Testimonials.aspx
In fact there is a procedure that will measure the distribution
of current through a cylindrical conductor.

I see it as a manufactured statement to satisfy the idea of an
uncompleted circuit where the current
passes over or thru and in a different direction than the same current
that generates its existence !
It does all this where the books state it is a series circuit where
the paths taken by the current are not identical. Why manufacture all
these happenings to prove what is just a theory, while at the same
time destroying the reasoning of a closed circuit without an
explanation how such actions
creat radiation, especially when it is admitted that radiation is not
fully understood?

It sounds like you are confusing this with a DC circuit.

I think the time as come to review again from the time of Maxwell and
build up afresh in line with
a century of findings and then re evaluate.
A good start would be to evaluate why antenna programs based on
Maxwells laws provide solutions based on equilibrium while discarding

How do you know the programs are based on "Equilibrium"? --
Whatever that means. *Can you provide any mathematical or
experimental evidence. *Since you have admitted you do not
understand high school math how can you possibly make such
statements.

all other designs. Saying that it can't be! *Because" "if true it
would have been discovered a 100 years ago" while silently adding "all
is known about antennas and the patent offices should be closed".

Judging by the "IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation"
nobody thinks all is known about antennas.

It will be tough to win a case against Art. He gets to play
prosecutor and judge on the same antenna show.
This would be his ruling on your last argument.
http://home.comcast.net/~nm5k/overruled.wmv

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 15, 8:39*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


I thought it would be better to accept the responses of the news group
as factual.

http://home.comcast.net/~nm5k/ru.wmv

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Ed Cregger" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:18 pm, "Frank" wrote:
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought

thats good, because nobody on here does.

especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not

'equilibrium' is neither required nor a desired part of Gauss's law...
which as i have pointed out has been a part of maxwell's equations since
the very beginning, without any help from you.

accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)

good, go after the cantennas... and don't forget the vent hole to let the
levitating neutrinos escape when they reach the end of the diamagnetic
resistor... the can is probably ferromagnetic so they'll be trapped
inside and explode otherwise!


--------

In a millenium, folks will look back and view Art as their EMR guru. He
was the first to advocate Zen EMR Theory to the unwashed. No offense to
anyone is intended.

Ed, N2ECW

ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Ed Cregger" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:18 pm, "Frank" wrote:
It is not necessary for everybody to accept this line of thought

thats good, because nobody on here does.

especially when equilibrium, a staple part of Gaussian law, is not

'equilibrium' is neither required nor a desired part of Gauss's law...
which as i have pointed out has been a part of maxwell's equations since
the very beginning, without any help from you.

accepted or understood. This particular debate has extended for about
a decade from when I postulated that a tank circuit provides radiation
in a series of pulses and not waves, I have not altered any thinking
on this group so I am calling that particu;ar debate a washout and
thus will concentrate on commenting on cantenna questions and the
like.
Art Unwin......KB9MZ..xg....(uk)

good, go after the cantennas... and don't forget the vent hole to let
the levitating neutrinos escape when they reach the end of the
diamagnetic resistor... the can is probably ferromagnetic so they'll be
trapped inside and explode otherwise!


--------

In a millenium, folks will look back and view Art as their EMR guru. He
was the first to advocate Zen EMR Theory to the unwashed. No offense to
anyone is intended.

Ed, N2ECW

ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
----------

8)

Ed, N2ECW

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 13, 2:44*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



What diametric ratio must a fractional wave length radiator be to
allow contrary current flow thru it's center. ?
Diameter / wavelength = 1.0, * *0.5, *0.1. * * 0.001, * * *0.0001,
0.00001,...?
Regards
Art

infinite

David
Just for the record, skin depth is proportional to frequency
Thus for very hight frequency the skin depth is exceedingly small
This tells us that the effect of eddy current with respect to the
diameter
is NOT infinite but limit dependent on the applied frequency.
I am not extending this thread, but on rereading it is obvious to me
that
there is a boundary within which a current could possibly travel. But
since the current is zero
at the end I am more inclined to think that applied current is
balanced at the source so that zero current is inevitable at the end
of the radiator, How this is done appears to be something like
a pump action which with laminar flow creates cavitation resistances
in line with Bernoulis theorems.IE velocity changes that are
dependent on distributed load losses of the radiator
The end of this thread !
Art
Art

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Art wrote:
"David just for the record, skin depth is proportional to
frequency----."

Not exactly. Skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of
the frequency.

For example at 1 Hz the skin depth is about 2.6 in. in copper. At 10 Hz.
it is about 0.826 in. and at 100 Hz the depth is about 0.260 in. and at
1000 Hz the depth is 0.0826 in. etc.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:
"David just for the record, skin depth is proportional to
frequency----."

Not exactly. Skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of
the frequency.

For example at 1 Hz the skin depth is about 2.6 in. in copper. At 10 Hz.
it is about 0.826 in. and at 100 Hz the depth is about 0.260 in. and at
1000 Hz the depth is 0.0826 in. etc.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


don't confuse him with the facts!

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote:
"David just for the record, skin depth is proportional to
frequency----."

Not exactly. Skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of
the frequency.

For example at 1 Hz the skin depth is about 2.6 in. in copper. At 10 Hz.
it is about 0.826 in. and at 100 Hz the depth is about 0.260 in. and at
1000 Hz the depth is 0.0826 in. etc.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Actually, skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of
frequency only in a good conductor like copper. Some common materials
like dirt are fairly good conductors at low frequencies but behave more
like dielectrics at higher frequencies. And skin depth doesn't change
with frequency in a dielectric. For "average" ground (0.005 S/m
conductivity, permittivity of 13), the transition between conductor
behavior and dielectric behavior is at about 6.9 MHz, in the middle of
the HF range. Well below that frequency, the skin depth changes in
inverse proportion to the square root of the frequency; above it, the
skin depth stays nearly constant. For "average" ground:

Freq MHz Skin Depth m
0.01 71.2
0.5 10.4
1 7.6
2 5.8
4 4.7
6.9 4.2
8 4.1
16 3.9
100 3.8

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 23, 4:43*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"David just for the record, skin depth is proportional to
frequency----."

Not exactly. Skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of
the frequency.

For example at 1 Hz the skin depth is about 2.6 in. in copper. At 10 Hz.
it is about 0.826 in. and at 100 Hz the depth is about 0.260 in. and at
1000 Hz the depth is 0.0826 in. etc.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Yes, I should have used "varied" instead of "proportional" But the
essence of the posting is still correct namely, it is false to state
that the skin effect always penetrate thro out the conductor
as is the statement that a current cannot travel thru the center of a
conductor where the material is devoid of eddy currents but enclosedn
by a eddy current shield
This is not to say that with a applied AC current such a route is
chosen as I previously thought
Art

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 4:43 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
For example at 1 Hz the skin depth is about 2.6 in. in copper. At 10 Hz.
it is about 0.826 in. and at 100 Hz the depth is about 0.260 in. and at
1000 Hz the depth is 0.0826 in. etc.
Yes, I should have used "varied" instead of "proportional" But the
essence of the posting is still correct namely, it is false to state
that the skin effect always penetrate thro out the conductor
as is the statement that a current cannot travel thru the center of a
conductor where the material is devoid of eddy currents but enclosedn
by a eddy current shield

of course current travels through the center of the conductor, just not the
way you had thought.

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 13, 2:44*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



What diametric ratio must a fractional wave length radiator be to
allow contrary current flow thru it's center. ?
Diameter / wavelength = 1.0, * *0.5, *0.1. * * 0.001, * * *0.0001,
0.00001,...?
Regards

Art





infinite

Is that your final answer
or is your last posting the final answer ?
The clock starts NOW

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 13, 2:44 pm, "Dave" wrote:

infinite

Is that your final answer
or is your last posting the final answer ?
The clock starts NOW

that is the same as my last posting... and is still correct!

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 25, 12:59*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Jan 13, 2:44 pm, "Dave" wrote:

infinite
Is that your final answer

*or is your last posting the final answer ?

The clock starts NOW

that is the same as my last posting... and is still correct!

Going back to the physics books which takes time. Skin depth formula
is derived from the assumption that the radiator is a perfect
conductor where the depth is "finite". A non perfect conductor is some
what different.
Art

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 23, 5:05*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message

...

Art wrote:
"David just for the record, skin depth is proportional to
frequency----."

Not exactly. Skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of
the frequency.

For example at 1 Hz the skin depth is about 2.6 in. in copper. At 10 Hz..
it is about 0.826 in. and at 100 Hz the depth is about 0.260 in. and at
1000 Hz the depth is 0.0826 in. etc.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

don't confuse him with the facts!

My facts were correct as stated. Richard stated the "exact"
proportions
which is really nit picking. Physics books say it is "proportional"
which states that it is frequency change what affects skin depth. It
is stated exactly that way in the book
that Richard has just obtained and quoted
Art

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Warning - dilletente alert! Maybe even worth an embarrassing dolt cringe

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?

Initially, It seemed pretty straightforward, but giving some thought to
the matter indicates it "ain't necessarily so".

I'm assuming that any thick conductor is going to have "skin" to any
where I can put a sensor, so even if I drilled an internal sensor, the
drill tunnel would form a part of the skin.

Giving that some thought, is it possible to make say a ribbed conductor
that resembled a tubular heat sink, would this device allow for more
current flow because of the greater amount of skin exposed compared to a
solid tube?

Just a little thought experiment.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 30, 10:00*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Warning - dilletente alert! Maybe even worth an embarrassing dolt cringe

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?

Initially, It seemed pretty straightforward, but giving some thought to
the matter indicates *it "ain't necessarily so".

I'm assuming that any thick conductor is going to have "skin" to any
where I can put a sensor, so even if I drilled an internal sensor, the
drill tunnel would form a part of the skin.

Giving that some thought, is it possible to make say a ribbed conductor
that resembled a tubular heat sink, would this device allow for more
current flow because of the greater amount of skin exposed compared to a
solid tube?

Just a little thought experiment.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

All charges will congregate along the peaks of the ribs so I can't see
how a greater
area is generated for utelization !
Regards
Art

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Just a little thought experiment.

Something else that I have wondered about:
Given a threaded rod with about double the surface
area of a piece of tubing, does the VF decrease?
Can a threaded rod be used to decrease the length
of a resonant vertical?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 30, 10:00 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Warning - dilletente alert! Maybe even worth an embarrassing dolt cringe

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?

Initially, It seemed pretty straightforward, but giving some thought to
the matter indicates it "ain't necessarily so".

I'm assuming that any thick conductor is going to have "skin" to any
where I can put a sensor, so even if I drilled an internal sensor, the
drill tunnel would form a part of the skin.

Giving that some thought, is it possible to make say a ribbed conductor
that resembled a tubular heat sink, would this device allow for more
current flow because of the greater amount of skin exposed compared to a
solid tube?

Just a little thought experiment.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

All charges will congregate along the peaks of the ribs so I can't see
how a greater area is generated for utelization !


Is what you are saying then that it is not truly a "skin" effect, which
would have the maximum current riding near the surface, but rather some
sort of effect that has that maximum current getting as far away from
the center of the conductor? In other words the vertical component of
the ribbing would have current flow as if it were at that distance from
the surface of a solid conductor.

Not trying to change th eworld here, just trying to get my head around
the issue. Lot's of things have misnomers as a name.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
Something else that I have wondered about:
Given a threaded rod with about double the surface
area of a piece of tubing, does the VF decrease?
__________________

The velocity of propagation of Andrew HJ8-50B, 3" OD, air-dielectric
Heliax® is 0.933c.

Both the inner and outer conductors of that coaxial cable are heavily
corrugated, so using threaded rod instead of smooth tubing may not
matter much to v.p.

RF

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Warning - dilletente alert! Maybe even worth an embarrassing dolt cringe

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?

Initially, It seemed pretty straightforward, but giving some thought to
the matter indicates it "ain't necessarily so".

I'm assuming that any thick conductor is going to have "skin" to any
where I can put a sensor, so even if I drilled an internal sensor, the
drill tunnel would form a part of the skin.

Giving that some thought, is it possible to make say a ribbed conductor
that resembled a tubular heat sink, would this device allow for more
current flow because of the greater amount of skin exposed compared to a
solid tube?

Just a little thought experiment.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike;

The short answer is "YES". It's called a "Faraday Cage"....

Dave WD9BDZ

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 30, 12:23*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 30, 10:00 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Warning - dilletente alert! Maybe even worth an embarrassing dolt cringe

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?

Initially, It seemed pretty straightforward, but giving some thought to
the matter indicates *it "ain't necessarily so".

I'm assuming that any thick conductor is going to have "skin" to any
where I can put a sensor, so even if I drilled an internal sensor, the
drill tunnel would form a part of the skin.

Giving that some thought, is it possible to make say a ribbed conductor
that resembled a tubular heat sink, would this device allow for more
current flow because of the greater amount of skin exposed compared to a
solid tube?

Just a little thought experiment.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

All charges will congregate along the peaks of the ribs so I can't see
how a greater area is generated for utelization !

Is what you are saying then that it is not truly a "skin" effect, which
would have the maximum current riding near the surface, but rather some
sort of effect that has that maximum current getting as far away from
the center of the conductor? In other words the vertical component of
the ribbing would have current flow as if it were at that distance from
the surface of a solid conductor.

Not trying to change th eworld here, just trying to get my head around
the issue. Lot's of things have misnomers as a name.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

What I am saying is that the ribs could prevent the flow of eddy
currents which operate as a completed circular circuit. This is how
the detection of fissures in material is found by non destructive
means. If eddy current is not present then radiation cannot occur,
thus all is not known about radiation !
Frankly I would like to know of another situation where energy flows
in the absence of a completed circuit which would provide more insight
of the circuitry of a fractional wavelength antenna, as the existing
explanation appears to be a bit to glib
Regards
Art

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 12:23 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
If eddy current is not present then radiation cannot occur,
thus all is not known about radiation !

eddy currents needed for radiation, now that is a good one. do the eddy
currents do the levitating of the magical diamagnetic neutrinos?

Frankly I would like to know of another situation where energy flows
in the absence of a completed circuit which would provide more insight
of the circuitry of a fractional wavelength antenna, as the existing
explanation appears to be a bit to glib

lets see:
1. energy flows from a flame, but not back into it
2. electromagnetic waves carry energy but don't need a complete circuit
3. sound waves carry energy but don't make a complete circuit
4. water waves carry energy but don't make a complete circuit
5. magical diamagnetic levitating neutrinos flow out from the sun and carry
energy but never go back... actually a whole bunch of charged and uncharged
particles flow out from the sun in the solar wind and never go back.

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

Warning - dilletente alert! Maybe even worth an embarrassing dolt cringe

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?

Here's one, fairly simple in principle although I imagine it would
require care in the implementation in order to prevent measurement
error due to other effects.

[1] Construct a balanced transmission line using a pair of solid
cylindrical conductors, having a known characteristic impedance.

[2] Terminate this transmission line with a dummy load - a pure
resistance which matches the line's characteristic impedance.

[3] Drive this transmission line via a suitable RF signal generator or
source, having a known (or carefully measured) output power into
the line's impedance.

[4] Measure the RF power delivered into the line, and the RF power
being dissipated by the dummy load. This could be done via an RF
millivoltmeter, for instance.

[5] Calculate the amount of power being lost in the transmission line.

[6] Replace the solid cylindrical conductors in the transmission line
with tubular conductors of the exact same material - hollow in the
center, but with a wall width of at least 5 skin depths at the
frequency you are using. Make sure that the outer diameter, and
spacing of the tubular conductors matches the OD and spacing of the
solid-conductor version of the line.

[7] Drive this new line, and repeat the measurements and calculate the
loss in this line.

[8] Calculate the cross-sectional area of the solid conductor, and of
the actual conductive portion of the hollow tubular conductor, and
then the ratio between the two.

[9] Calculate the ratio between the power losses in the two types of
transmission line.

[10] Compare these two ratios.

You could in principle do a similar test by making two dipoles out of
solid and tubular elements, driving them with identical signals, and
measuring the field strength. I suspect this test would be harder to
do reliabily.

In either case, what you ought to be able to demonstrate, is that two
transmission lines (one solid-conductor , the other hollow-conductor,
but otherwise identical) which are long enough to exhibit substantial
losses (e.g. 3 dB or 50% of the input power) would have near-identical
losses, even though the amount of conductive material in the
hollow-conductor line is less than 10% that of that in the
solid-conductor line.

This would be good evidence that only the outer perimeter of the
solid conductors was carrying a significant amount of current, since
"removing the center" doesn't decrease the loss.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Warning - dilletente alert! Maybe even worth an embarrassing dolt cringe

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?

Initially, It seemed pretty straightforward, but giving some thought to
the matter indicates it "ain't necessarily so".

I'm assuming that any thick conductor is going to have "skin" to any
where I can put a sensor, so even if I drilled an internal sensor, the
drill tunnel would form a part of the skin.

Giving that some thought, is it possible to make say a ribbed conductor
that resembled a tubular heat sink, would this device allow for more
current flow because of the greater amount of skin exposed compared to a
solid tube?

Just a little thought experiment.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

An experiment to verify skin effect:

Make or obtain a self-contained RF signal source. Put it into a
completely sealed conductive box -- PC board material soldered together
with no gaps would be fine. Then try to detect any signal outside the
box. If the RF current could penetrate the conductive material, that is,
if there were no skin effect, you'll be able to detect the signal.

Here's another: http://w8ji.com/skindepth.htm.

The problem with your ribbed conductor is the same general thing that
causes skin effect -- currents cause fields which repel other currents.
The result would be more current on the tips of the ribs and less
current in the valleys.

You can make a pretty good surface current sniffer by winding a bunch of
turns of wire on 1/2 of a ferrite core, and connecting it to a scope or
other detector. Put the two core piece ends on the surface, so it looks
like an upside down U when on a flat horizontal conductor.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Just a little thought experiment.

Something else that I have wondered about:
Given a threaded rod with about double the surface
area of a piece of tubing, does the VF decrease?
Can a threaded rod be used to decrease the length
of a resonant vertical?

hmmm, interesting thought. I know where I can get a 8 foot threaded rod
of the same diameter as a solid rod. Maybe an experiment in the works.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 30, 2:10*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Jan 30, 12:23 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

If eddy current is not present then radiation cannot occur,
thus all is not known about radiation !

eddy currents needed for radiation, now that is a good one. *do the eddy
currents do the levitating of the magical diamagnetic neutrinos?

Frankly I would like to know of another situation where energy flows
in the absence of a completed circuit which would provide more insight
of the circuitry of a fractional wavelength antenna, as the existing
explanation appears to be a bit to glib

lets see:
1. energy flows from a flame, but not back into it
2. electromagnetic waves carry energy but don't need a complete circuit
3. sound waves carry energy but don't make a complete circuit
4. water waves carry energy but don't make a complete circuit
5. magical diamagnetic levitating neutrinos flow out from the sun and carry
energy but never go back... actually a whole bunch of charged and uncharged
particles flow out from the sun in the solar wind and never go back.

No David
Can you point to another example where a circuit flows back on itself
as proposed by this group. All of the above provides a complete
circuit because of Newtons law but none of them retrace the forward
path. I always thought that all electrical circuits are closed. As for
eddy currents how else are you going to inpart spin on a particle?
It is done this way in all metal scrap sorting yards so you need to
learn how to google so you can catch up with everybody else. Now if
they do not take advantage of levitation methods via eddy currents I
would be interested on your take of that process
without retracing a path was some sort of rule of thumb

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Can you point to another example where a circuit flows back on itself
as proposed by this group.

as proposed by you... your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos flow out
from the sun, but how do they ever get back if they get stuck on the
diamagnetic materials that you use for your magical antennas?

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 30, 7:24*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Can you point to another example where a circuit flows back on itself
as proposed by this group.

as proposed by you... your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos flow out
from the sun, but how do they ever get back if they get stuck on the
diamagnetic materials that you use for your magical antennas?

oh my, and you are writing a book?

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:00:43 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?

and then later on (following some rather arcane metaphysical
theories):

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:06:47 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

hmmm, interesting thought. I know where I can get a 8 foot threaded rod
of the same diameter as a solid rod. Maybe an experiment in the works.

Hi Mike,

Measure the DC resistance and compare to the rather simple formula
that exists in any textbook that Art has spit on. I bet the
measurement agrees with the computation to within several percent.

Measure the AC resistance at a suitably high frequency. How much is
it a portion of the DC resistance?

Measure the AC resistance at a suitably higher frequency. How much is
it a portion of the DC resistance? Does that portion equal the bulk
conductive volume of the thread alone? If not, raise the frequency
some more until it does.

The threaded rod is rather an elaborate red-herring because you can do
the same thing with smooth wire, rod, plate, tube - choose what you
will, the volume of conductivity will be indicated by the change in
resistance.

Want to prove it is conducting only on the exterior surface?
Substitute equal diameter tube for solid rod and perform the same
three measurements above. If current cannot return back down the
inside, Resistance should climb astronomically (say by bumping the DC
frequency to 0.0001 Hz?)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 7:24 pm, "Dave" wrote:

oh my, and you are writing a book?

i already have. just published the 2nd edition. of course you wouldn't be
interested since everything in books must be wrong.

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

On Jan 31, 6:45*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Jan 30, 7:24 pm, "Dave" wrote:

oh my, and you are writing a book?

i already have. *just published the 2nd edition. *of course you wouldn't be
interested since everything in books must be wrong.

2nd Edition?
Well congratulations to you
Art

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?
Measure the AC resistance at a suitably high frequency. How much is
it a portion of the DC resistance?

Just as I thought. An obvious method that quickly snuffs the growth
of grandiose patent claim enumerators.

If anyone can do it, you can't patent it - if no one can understand
it, then at least your patent can use obscure terms to get it
published as a poem.

The method in the description above claims:
1. A convector of charge particels aranged in an equilibrium of
static movement such that
2. movement of the equilibrated gaussian enclosed particels
3. has two motions not anticipated by Newton but proved by him to be
4. equil in force
5. reflecting at termination points or not
6. moving conversely in agreement with Einstein's wave theory
7. and thus was it ever
8. amen
10. send my money

e.e.cummings (would
crack a
smile)

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Warning - dilletente alert! Maybe even worth an embarrassing dolt cringe

This question may have been asked before, but is there a physical
experiment that is good for verifying skin effect?

Initially, It seemed pretty straightforward, but giving some thought to
the matter indicates it "ain't necessarily so".

I'm assuming that any thick conductor is going to have "skin" to any
where I can put a sensor, so even if I drilled an internal sensor, the
drill tunnel would form a part of the skin.

Giving that some thought, is it possible to make say a ribbed conductor
that resembled a tubular heat sink, would this device allow for more
current flow because of the greater amount of skin exposed compared to a
solid tube?

yes.

Look up Litz wire..

basically the same idea

However, just because it's not physically connected doesn't mean that
the magnetic field from a rib wouldn't affect the current in the
adjacent ribs (which is what's going on with the whole skin effect
thing, anyway)..

Contrary current flow within a radiator
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Just a little thought experiment.

Something else that I have wondered about:
Given a threaded rod with about double the surface
area of a piece of tubing, does the VF decrease?
Can a threaded rod be used to decrease the length
of a resonant vertical?

to the extent that the current is on the peaks of the threads.. in the
limit it would be like a helically loaded antenna or that funky delay
line coax with the spiral core? It would be complex to analyze, but gut
feel is no.. the threads aren't tall and skinny enough in the run of the
mill threaded rod.