Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

As I stand on the corner waving goodbye to that bus, I fondly recall
how the logic stood that no current could be found on the tips of
radiators, thus trim them off to no loss of radiation. It took very
few decades before Art had then recognized that his new antenna's tips
had no more current than the full-length one, and he trimmed that one
once again! New and improved (as the saying goes). Another decade
passed into the new millennium and he observed that he could extend
this logic once again to the point where his last design encompassed a
160M full sized antenna in the space of two shoe boxes. The TRIUMPH
OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS.

Is any simillarity between Art and Tesla?
Bill Miller wrote: "*But* Tesla's "antennas" were similar physically to the
well-known "Tesla
Coil." These antennas, in spite of their enormous size, were electrically
"small" when compared with a wavelength. They were essentially a metallic
ball that was fed from the secondary of a resonant transformer. But they
appear to have had fairly large effective bandwidths in spite of their
electrically small size,"
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Fry" wrote
...
On Sep 14, 12:41 pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate?

Parts with r-f-current flow, the greatest radiation occurring from
locations along the radiator where current is greatest.

Your words: "Only the change in current and charge, over time, produces
EM
radiation."
At oscillations the current start from zero, accelerate to max speed and
deccelerate to zero.
At the max speed no acceleration at all.

Current flow is near zero at the ends of any unloaded dipole, and at
the top of any unloaded vertical monopole (even those in directional
arrays).

At the ends are the max accelerations and the max radiation.
S*


No, you have it wrong again - the current must be zero at the ends, there is
nowhere for it to go, and there cannot be acceleration of charge is there's
no current. Please go away and read some books and the NEETS module to
which I provided the link.

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

As I stand on the corner waving goodbye to that bus, I fondly recall
how the logic stood that no current could be found on the tips of
radiators, thus trim them off to no loss of radiation. It took very
few decades before Art had then recognized that his new antenna's tips
had no more current than the full-length one, and he trimmed that one
once again! New and improved (as the saying goes). Another decade
passed into the new millennium and he observed that he could extend
this logic once again to the point where his last design encompassed a
160M full sized antenna in the space of two shoe boxes. The TRIUMPH
OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS.

Is any simillarity between Art and Tesla?
Bill Miller wrote: "*But* Tesla's "antennas" were similar physically to
the well-known "Tesla
Coil." These antennas, in spite of their enormous size, were electrically
"small" when compared with a wavelength. They were essentially a metallic
ball that was fed from the secondary of a resonant transformer. But they
appear to have had fairly large effective bandwidths in spite of their
electrically small size,"
S*


Tesla created HF transformers. He didn't design them as antennas but,
because of their significant length at the operating wavelength, they did
act that way to some extent. The metallic ball (often a torus nowadays) is
a means of terminating the secondary in a way that reduces spurious
discharges - its radius of curvature is large. His ideas to distribute
electrical power using Tesla coils were crazy and dangerous, but some argue
he was the inspiration for AC distribution at much lower voltages, which is
a good thing.

There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that 'Art
Unwin' character. Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. 'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 15, 7:06*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...





"Richard Clark" wrote
.. .

As I stand on the corner waving goodbye to that bus, I fondly recall
how the logic stood that no current could be found on the tips of
radiators, thus trim them off to no loss of radiation. *It took very
few decades before Art had then recognized that his new antenna's tips
had no more current than the full-length one, and he trimmed that one
once again! *New and improved (as the saying goes). *Another decade
passed into the new millennium and he observed that he could extend
this logic once again to the point where his last design encompassed a
160M full sized antenna in the space of two shoe boxes. *The TRIUMPH
OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS.

Is any simillarity between Art and Tesla?
Bill Miller wrote: "*But* Tesla's "antennas" were similar physically to
the well-known "Tesla
Coil." These antennas, in spite of their enormous size, were electrically
"small" when compared with a wavelength. They were essentially a metallic
ball that was fed from the secondary of a resonant transformer. But they
appear to have had fairly large effective bandwidths in spite of their
electrically small size,"
S*

Tesla created HF transformers. *He didn't design them as antennas but,
because of their significant length at the operating wavelength, they did
act that way to some extent. *The metallic ball (often a torus nowadays) is
a means of terminating the secondary in a way that reduces spurious
discharges - its radius of curvature is large. *His ideas to distribute
electrical power using Tesla coils were crazy and dangerous, but some argue
he was the inspiration for AC distribution at much lower voltages, which is
a good thing.

There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that 'Art
Unwin' character. *Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. *'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. *You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chr

Spherical radiation pattern
 

joe wrote:
Look at the antenna current as an electron oscillating
back and forth between the ends.

At HF frequencies, the electrons move hardly at all, tending
to oscillate back and forth in place. The idea that electrons
race from end to end in an antenna is simply false.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpeedOfElectrons

"... for a copper wire of radius 1 mm carrying a steady
current of 10 Amps, the drift velocity is only about
0.024 cm/sec!"

For a 100w 10 MHz RF wave, you can divide that distance by
more than 10,000,000. Exactly how far can the electron travel
in 0.05 microsecond?

It is the photons emitted by the electrons that travel at
the speed of light in the medium. That's the fields surrounding
the antenna conductor, not the electrons in the conductor.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 15, 7:06*pm, "christofire" wrote:


There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that 'Art
Unwin' character. *Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. *'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. *You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

Hi Chris
The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal? or to state it another way,
How is it illegal to change a static field into a dynamic field?
can you, will you answer the question or are you just sitting on
Richards shirt tail.

Jaro

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
At the ends are the max accelerations and the max radiation.

How can an electron accelerate at at open-circuit?
The acceleration is maximum at the current zero-
crossing with the greatest slope. That's at the
center of a 1/2WL dipole.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:35:28 -0500, tom wrote:

Years is a fallacy. You showed up with your fantasies quite recently,
not even 2 years ago, at least with the nonsense you currently spout.
If it's true, prove it.

Hi Tom,

Actually Art arrived back in the dark ages of the fin-de-siecle. He
had just had a patent issued for a new invented antenna and asked if
anyone could explain how it worked. (drum-roll)

Several were astonished (as I have already mentioned) to find that his
antenna design had reflector (the new and improved model had two)
elements that were shorter than the driven element, and the director
elements longer.

Well, when no one could fulfill that request, we've been sub-morons
ever since. It's a rare honour that he keeps coming back here for the
validation of cretins when the Nobel Committee is located in Sweden.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

So are his fantasies new? Or did he have them before and just got a
stump from the patent office?

I truthfully don't remember him being around until lately.

The amazing thing is that his story slowly morphs with time, although it
might be better to say he adds more layers of manure.

tom
K0TAR

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 15, 8:20*pm, tom wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:35:28 -0500, tom wrote:

Years is a fallacy. *You showed up with your fantasies quite recently,
not even 2 years ago, at least with the nonsense you currently spout.
If it's true, prove it.

Hi Tom,

Actually Art arrived back in the dark ages of the fin-de-siecle. *He
had just had a patent issued for a new invented antenna and asked if
anyone could explain how it worked. *(drum-roll)

Several were astonished (as I have already mentioned) to find that his
antenna design had reflector (the new and improved model had two)
elements that were shorter than the driven element, and the director
elements longer.

Well, when no one could fulfill that request, we've been sub-morons
ever since. *It's a rare honour that he keeps coming back here for the
validation of cretins when the Nobel Committee is located in Sweden.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

So are his fantasies new? *Or did he have them before and just got a
stump from the patent office?

I truthfully don't remember him being around until lately.

The amazing thing is that his story slowly morphs with time, although it
might be better to say he adds more layers of manure.

tom
K0TAR

And you would know seeing as you are full of it,
Art has posed the question can you answer it or are you
going to duck it as you usually do by making demands
and no offerings.

Jaro

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"jaroslav lipka" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 7:06 pm, "christofire" wrote:


There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that
'Art
Unwin' character. Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. 'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his
own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

Hi Chris
The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal? or to state it another way,
How is it illegal to change a static field into a dynamic field?
can you, will you answer the question or are you just sitting on
Richards shirt tail.

Jaro


I certainly haven't arrived here by sitting on anyone's shirt tails. If
you'd care to read some of the history of this NG you'd see where I come
from.

Your question is not put clearly, although I have seen garbled sentences
like this before in this Usenet group. My first question is: have you
bothered to read any of the respected books on the subject, such as
'Electromagnetics with applications' by Krauss and Fleisch. I suspect if
you had you wouldn't be asking me such a question - it makes no sense! Do I
take it you are referring to Gauss's law for electric fields? Are you aware
that there is a counterpart Gauss's law for magnetic fields? I don't
believe there is such a thing as a single 'Gaussian law of statics' -
someone has made that up!

Gauss's law for electric fields states: the integral of the electric flux
density over a closed surface equals the charge enclosed. This is an
important part of the basis of electrostatics, that is the study of
electrical phenomena caused by static charges, but it applicable at a point
in time to any scenario that involves an enclosed charge - which means any
electrical conductor, whether it carries a non-moving charge, DC or AC.
Gauss's law for magnetic fields states: the integral of the magnetic flux
density over a closed surface is equal to zero, and this is an important
part of the basis of magnetics, again whether static or changing.

Both of Gauss's laws are embodied in Maxwell's equations and for the normal
RF case of sinusoidally-alternating variables a number of different
notations can be used, a popular one being phasor notation. As you will
know, phasors are vectors that rotate at the same angular frequency but have
arbitrary phase relationships and amplitudes - so phasor notation is a
compact way of expressing quite a lot. But, in this case, every one of the
phasors involved, D the displacement current density, rho the enclosed
charge, and B the magnetic flux density, is a variable that alternates with
the passage of time. 'Dynamic' variables if you want to call them that.

Neither of Gauss's laws applies directly to strength of an electric or
magnetic field but the linkage is the other two of Maxwell's equations based
on Ampere's law and Faraday's law, which are both applicable to time-varying
fields - 'dynamic fields' if you must.

So ... would you like to put your question more clearly? What do you
actually mean by 'to change a static field into a dynamic field' in respect
of antennas, where all the electrical and magnetic variables are changing
with time, especially the fields? Is this the result of a misunderstanding
of the meaning of the word 'electrostatic' - used to differentiate between
those phenomena caused by the presence of contained charge and those caused
by its movement?

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:30:16 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin



wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
So says the only self-proclaimed expert.
- snip -
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
The only person you're exposing is yourself and not in a good way. It
is extremely difficult to take your arguments seriously or even
understand them given your posts' poor spelling and grammar along with
the abysmal formatting.The spelling variants are understandable, my
schooling started on the banks of the Devon river. Words like
"fraustrated' are something else altogether. That isn't a fat-fingered
error.

Don't blame it one the web interface you post through.Your posts could
be composed and spell-checked in a text editor before the content is
pasted into a web interface. You could
also let
the web interface handle word-wrapping
instead of inserting
seemingly random cr/lf pairs in your
posts.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to present your theories
and arguments in a rational, cohesive manner.

in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong.
This is equaled and exceeded by your inability to clearly state and
detail your theories without the use of circular logic. Many times
when a question is asked rather than answer you choose to start a new
thread.

This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling?
What makes any of your ramblings the truth? Was your post on GB
standing alone (3 Sept 2009) the truth? You conveniently ignored the
fact that GB's declaration of war came about because Germany had
attacked GB's ally Poland. GB stood beside Poland and not alone.

If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point
I have previously suggested that you present your theories directly to
those in the academic community. Why not obtain validation there and
then come back and say 'I told you so'?

So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it .
Yet you always run to a new thread.

I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal.
Did I mention something about spelling, grammar and formatting?

I'm not certain how "many hams around the World is following this
augument" but that number is insignificantly small relative to the
world-wide amateur community. The size of the amateur community is in
turn insignificantly small relative to the world-wide academic
community. You choice of venue is as questionable as anything else.

selah

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 15, 8:15*am, "christofire" wrote:
"jaroslav lipka" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 7:06 pm, "christofire" wrote:



There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that
'Art
Unwin' character. Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. 'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his
own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

* Hi Chris
* * * * * * * *The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal? *or to state it another way,
* * *How is it illegal to change a static field into a dynamic field?
can you, will you answer the question or are you just sitting on
Richards shirt tail.

*Jaro

I certainly haven't arrived here by sitting on anyone's shirt tails. *If
you'd care to read some of the history of this NG you'd see where I come
from.

Your question is not put clearly, although I have seen garbled sentences
like this before in this Usenet group. *My first question is: have you
bothered to read any of the respected books on the subject, such as
'Electromagnetics with applications' by Krauss and Fleisch. *I suspect if
you had you wouldn't be asking me such a question - it makes no sense! *Do I
take it you are referring to Gauss's law for electric fields? *Are you aware
that there is a counterpart Gauss's law for magnetic fields? *I don't
believe there is such a thing as a single 'Gaussian law of statics' -
someone has made that up!

Gauss's law for electric fields states: the integral of the electric flux
density over a closed surface equals the charge enclosed. *This is an
important part of the basis of electrostatics, that is the study of
electrical phenomena caused by static charges, but it applicable at a point
in time to any scenario that involves an enclosed charge - which means any
electrical conductor, whether it carries a non-moving charge, DC or AC.
Gauss's law for magnetic fields states: the integral of the magnetic flux
density over a closed surface is equal to zero, and this is an important
part of the basis of magnetics, again whether static or changing.

Both of Gauss's laws are embodied in Maxwell's equations and for the normal
RF case of sinusoidally-alternating variables a number of different
notations can be used, a popular one being phasor notation. *As you will
know, phasors are vectors that rotate at the same angular frequency but have
arbitrary phase relationships and amplitudes - so phasor notation is a
compact way of expressing quite a lot. *But, in this case, every one of the
phasors involved, D the displacement current density, rho the enclosed
charge, and B the magnetic flux density, is a variable that alternates with
the passage of time. *'Dynamic' variables if you want to call them that..

Neither of Gauss's laws applies directly to strength of an electric or
magnetic field but the linkage is the other two of Maxwell's equations based
on Ampere's law and Faraday's law, which are both applicable to time-varying
fields - 'dynamic fields' if you must.

So ... would you like to put your question more clearly? *What do you
actually mean by 'to change a static field into a dynamic field' in respect
of antennas, where all the electrical and magnetic variables are changing
with time, especially the fields? *Is this the result of a misunderstanding
of the meaning of the word 'electrostatic' - used to differentiate between
those phenomena caused by the presence of contained charge and those caused
by its movement?

Chris


Gauss's law of statics is enclosed particles in equilibrium. Add a
time varying field to same it becomes a dynamic field in equilibrium
and thus equates with Maxwell's laws.

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 14, 11:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, Registered User wrote:



On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
The question is why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law
of statics illegal ?
Or stated another way, what is it illegal by changing a static field
into a dynamic field?
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong. This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling? If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it . I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal. Until then......

The easiest way to support your hypothesis is to show a plot or data
table showing how time effects a static field. Frankly I don't know
how you could show any relevant data since the word STATIC means
"unchanging over time" . Applying a time variable to something that is
static is pointless.
Time is relevant to DYNAMIC fields but someone else has already taken
care of that for us.

Jimmie

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 14, 1:56*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...



"Richard Fry" wrote
....

- - small snip --



QUOTE
A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the
region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or
vice-versa. *Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa.

Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that
radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. *The
basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as:

IL = Qv * (A m s^-1)

where

I = time-changing current, A s^-1
L = length of current element, m
Q = charge, C
v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the
charge, m s^-2

Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.

In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate?
S*

In all the parts that carry current, of course. *Isn't that obvious?

Incidentally, who is A* ? ... the person who wrote:

* * Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations?
* * Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
* * A*

Chris

Could mean that Art and S are the same person, one does seem to appear
when the other disappears.

Jimmie

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 8:15 am, "christofire" wrote:
"jaroslav lipka" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 7:06 pm, "christofire" wrote:

- - snip - -

I certainly haven't arrived here by sitting on anyone's shirt tails. If
you'd care to read some of the history of this NG you'd see where I come
from.

Your question is not put clearly, although I have seen garbled sentences
like this before in this Usenet group. My first question is: have you
bothered to read any of the respected books on the subject, such as
'Electromagnetics with applications' by Krauss and Fleisch. I suspect if
you had you wouldn't be asking me such a question - it makes no sense! Do
I
take it you are referring to Gauss's law for electric fields? Are you
aware
that there is a counterpart Gauss's law for magnetic fields? I don't
believe there is such a thing as a single 'Gaussian law of statics' -
someone has made that up!

Gauss's law for electric fields states: the integral of the electric flux
density over a closed surface equals the charge enclosed. This is an
important part of the basis of electrostatics, that is the study of
electrical phenomena caused by static charges, but it applicable at a
point
in time to any scenario that involves an enclosed charge - which means any
electrical conductor, whether it carries a non-moving charge, DC or AC.
Gauss's law for magnetic fields states: the integral of the magnetic flux
density over a closed surface is equal to zero, and this is an important
part of the basis of magnetics, again whether static or changing.

Both of Gauss's laws are embodied in Maxwell's equations and for the
normal
RF case of sinusoidally-alternating variables a number of different
notations can be used, a popular one being phasor notation. As you will
know, phasors are vectors that rotate at the same angular frequency but
have
arbitrary phase relationships and amplitudes - so phasor notation is a
compact way of expressing quite a lot. But, in this case, every one of the
phasors involved, D the displacement current density, rho the enclosed
charge, and B the magnetic flux density, is a variable that alternates
with
the passage of time. 'Dynamic' variables if you want to call them that.

Neither of Gauss's laws applies directly to strength of an electric or
magnetic field but the linkage is the other two of Maxwell's equations
based
on Ampere's law and Faraday's law, which are both applicable to
time-varying
fields - 'dynamic fields' if you must.

So ... would you like to put your question more clearly? What do you
actually mean by 'to change a static field into a dynamic field' in
respect
of antennas, where all the electrical and magnetic variables are changing
with time, especially the fields? Is this the result of a misunderstanding
of the meaning of the word 'electrostatic' - used to differentiate between
those phenomena caused by the presence of contained charge and those
caused
by its movement?

Chris


(written by Unwin)
Gauss's law of statics is enclosed particles in equilibrium. Add a
time varying field to same it becomes a dynamic field in equilibrium
and thus equates with Maxwell's laws.


(written by Chris)
This appears to be paraphysical nonsense, once again.

(a) There are no 'Maxwell's laws' - there are the four Maxwell's equations
based on laws ascribed to the other three authors named above. The term
'eqilibrium' does not feature in, and is not required in, Maxwell's
equations or the laws it is based upon. Radio communication has been based
on Maxwell's equations for more than 100 years without need for
modification.

(b) There is no single 'Gauss's law of statics' as I explained above, and
both of Gauss's laws can be applied to time varying quantities but neither
contains a field.

(c) Both of Gauss's laws are included in Maxwell's equations without
modification - there is no need to 'Add a time varying field to same' - it
is there already in each case.
Once again: Gauss's laws are already applicable to time varying
quantities.

(d) What Maxwell provided was unification of the presentation of the four
equations in differential, integral or phasor form, so the relationships and
linkage between them became clear and they could all be used together to
solve electromagnetic problems.

I think the group is aware by now what I think of the writings of people who
claim to know better than Kraus, Jordan & Balmain, Jasik, et al, on the
basis of no practical evidence.

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 11:30 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:35 pm, Registered User wrote:



On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until
a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and
strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of
effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
The question is why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law
of statics illegal ?
Or stated another way, what is it illegal by changing a static field
into a dynamic field?
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong. This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling? If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it . I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal. Until then......

The easiest way to support your hypothesis is to show a plot or data
table showing how time effects a static field. Frankly I don't know
how you could show any relevant data since the word STATIC means
"unchanging over time" . Applying a time variable to something that is
static is pointless.
Time is relevant to DYNAMIC fields but someone else has already taken
care of that for us.

Jimmie


I've noted, further down the thread, that the term 'electrostatic' is used
in electromagnetics to distinguish between phenomena that depend on the
presence of a quantity of charge (e.g. electric field strength) and
phenomena that depend on the rate of movement of charge (e.g. magnetic field
strength). Perhaps the 'static' part of the word is a misnomer when the
whole system is alternating at a radio frequency, but it is used widely in
the literature. For example, if you look up the components of electric
field around a dipole you'll find close-in reactive components that are
often referred to as 'electrostatic'.

As always: if in doubt, read Kraus.

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 15, 10:24*am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 8:15 am, "christofire" wrote:

"jaroslav lipka" wrote in message

....
On Sep 15, 7:06 pm, "christofire" wrote:

- - snip - -



I certainly haven't arrived here by sitting on anyone's shirt tails. If
you'd care to read some of the history of this NG you'd see where I come
from.

Your question is not put clearly, although I have seen garbled sentences
like this before in this Usenet group. My first question is: have you
bothered to read any of the respected books on the subject, such as
'Electromagnetics with applications' by Krauss and Fleisch. I suspect if
you had you wouldn't be asking me such a question - it makes no sense! Do
I
take it you are referring to Gauss's law for electric fields? Are you
aware
that there is a counterpart Gauss's law for magnetic fields? I don't
believe there is such a thing as a single 'Gaussian law of statics' -
someone has made that up!

Gauss's law for electric fields states: the integral of the electric flux
density over a closed surface equals the charge enclosed. This is an
important part of the basis of electrostatics, that is the study of
electrical phenomena caused by static charges, but it applicable at a
point
in time to any scenario that involves an enclosed charge - which means any
electrical conductor, whether it carries a non-moving charge, DC or AC.
Gauss's law for magnetic fields states: the integral of the magnetic flux
density over a closed surface is equal to zero, and this is an important
part of the basis of magnetics, again whether static or changing.

Both of Gauss's laws are embodied in Maxwell's equations and for the
normal
RF case of sinusoidally-alternating variables a number of different
notations can be used, a popular one being phasor notation. As you will
know, phasors are vectors that rotate at the same angular frequency but
have
arbitrary phase relationships and amplitudes - so phasor notation is a
compact way of expressing quite a lot. But, in this case, every one of the
phasors involved, D the displacement current density, rho the enclosed
charge, and B the magnetic flux density, is a variable that alternates
with
the passage of time. 'Dynamic' variables if you want to call them that.

Neither of Gauss's laws applies directly to strength of an electric or
magnetic field but the linkage is the other two of Maxwell's equations
based
on Ampere's law and Faraday's law, which are both applicable to
time-varying
fields - 'dynamic fields' if you must.

So ... would you like to put your question more clearly? What do you
actually mean by 'to change a static field into a dynamic field' in
respect
of antennas, where all the electrical and magnetic variables are changing
with time, especially the fields? Is this the result of a misunderstanding
of the meaning of the word 'electrostatic' - used to differentiate between
those phenomena caused by the presence of contained charge and those
caused
by its movement?

Chris

(written by Unwin)
Gauss's law of statics is enclosed *particles in equilibrium. Add a
time varying field *to same it becomes a dynamic field *in equilibrium
and thus equates with Maxwell's laws.

(written by Chris)
This appears to be paraphysical nonsense, once again.

(a) There are no 'Maxwell's laws' - there are the four Maxwell's equations
based on laws ascribed to the other three authors named above. *The term
'eqilibrium' does not feature in, and is not required in, Maxwell's
equations or the laws it is based upon. *Radio communication has been based
on Maxwell's equations for more than 100 years without need for
modification.

(b) There is no single 'Gauss's law of statics' as I explained above, and
both of Gauss's laws can be applied to time varying quantities but neither
contains a field.

(c) Both of Gauss's laws are included in Maxwell's equations without
modification - there is no need to 'Add a time varying field *to same' - it
is there already in each case.
* * * * Once again: Gauss's laws are already applicable to time varying
quantities.

(d) What Maxwell provided was unification of the presentation of the four
equations in differential, integral or phasor form, so the relationships and
linkage between them became clear and they could all be used together to
solve electromagnetic problems.

I think the group is aware by now what I think of the writings of people who
claim to know better than Kraus, Jordan & Balmain, Jasik, et al, on the
basis of no practical evidence.

Chris

You still did not put a stake in the ground, just walked around the
question and then walked away. One more chance before I place you in
"unsure". Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?
What is your call sign or do you prefer to remain as a unknown?

Spherical radiation pattern
 

christofire wrote:
It is in the nature of a challenge for him to take up if he wishes, and if
he does then his bet will be in respect of his positive assertion, but, of
course, he hasn't taken it up yet. If he doesn't take up the challenge then
nothing new is proved - whichever way you care to interpret that.

Sorry, Chris, I misread your posting. You were not asking
Art to prove a negative which I falsely assumed.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 10:24 am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message


- - snip - -



You still did not put a stake in the ground, just walked around the
question and then walked away. One more chance before I place you in
"unsure". Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?
What is your call sign or do you prefer to remain as a unknown?


Incorrect; I gave a positive answer to the question. My answer was based on
normal physics and identified what must, therefore, be paraphysical or
nonsense (or both). The equations don't make any reference to particles -
as I'm sure you are aware. As to the views of Maxwell, the person, I
daresay you can make them up to your heart's content without provable
challenge.

I don't much care what category you place me in - you already know how I
categorise people who make up their own versions of physics and expect other
to believe them ... and sadly some appear to!

My call sign, if I have one, is none of your business.

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 15, 10:21*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, Registered User wrote:

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
The question is why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law
of statics illegal ?
Or stated another way, what is it illegal by changing a static field
into a dynamic field?
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong. This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling? If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it . I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal. Until then......

The easiest way to support your hypothesis is to show a plot or data
table showing how time effects a static field. Frankly I don't know
how you could show any relevant data since the word STATIC means
"unchanging over time" . Applying a time variable to something that is
static is pointless.
Time is relevant to DYNAMIC fields but someone else has already taken
care of that for us.

Jimmie

No, it is not pointless because it enables particles at rest ON
radiators. to be implied. This has been the problem for decades that
has prevented advancement. This extension thus moves away from the
idea of parts removed from the radiator itself. Referring to books is
like saying "all is known". So the question posed is all important
because, if true, it means that a radiator can be any shape size or
elevation as long as all contained is in a state of equilibrium.
Now all avoid the question because they say they don't understand the
word "equilibrium."
So I posed the question to a antenna optimizer where it responded with
a non planar design in equilibrium. Never mind whether it is useable
or not it confirmed the extension given. We have argued for a long
time on a question that contains the word equilibrium rather than
focussing on that which is now revealed. Now along comes this "chris"
who unlike Dr Davis declares he doesn't understand the question( not
equilibrium), tho he has been prolific in advice and insults. So
there has been absolutely no closure on the question thus giving rise
to insults.which all can supply with ease. The question is still
there and does not have academic closure!

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 15, 10:58*am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 10:24 am, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

You still did not put a stake in the ground, just walked around the
question and then walked away. One more chance before I place you in
"unsure". Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?
What is your call sign or do you prefer to remain as a unknown?

Incorrect; I gave a positive answer to the question. *My answer was based on
normal physics and identified what must, therefore, be paraphysical or
nonsense (or both). *The equations don't make any reference to particles -
as I'm sure you are aware. *As to the views of Maxwell, the person, I
daresay you can make them up to your heart's content without provable
challenge.

I don't much care what category you place me in - you already know how I
categorise people who make up their own versions of physics and expect other
to believe them ... and sadly some appear to!

My call sign, if I have one, is none of your business.

Chris

O.k. So the thread as posted in the title is now closed. On the
question on the Gauss extension this is not understood so that is also
now closed. Insults? Well they can go on for ever as this is the main
attraction for its members.

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"JIMMIE" wrote
...
On Sep 14, 1:56 pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...



"Richard Fry" wrote
...

- - small snip --



QUOTE
A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the
region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or
vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa.

Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that
radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The
basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as:

IL = Qv (A m s^-1)

where

I = time-changing current, A s^-1
L = length of current element, m
Q = charge, C
v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the
charge, m s^-2

Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.

In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate?
S*

In all the parts that carry current, of course. Isn't that obvious?

Incidentally, who is A* ? ... the person who wrote:

Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations?
Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
A*

Chris

Could mean that Art and S are the same person, one does seem to appear
when the other disappears.

You are right. Few mans ago I was writting that Gauss law is enough to do
antennas. Of course not this for magnetism.
Static charge produces static electric field and pulsed (in the end of the
antena) alternating field. It is radiation. For me there are ether vaves.
For Art photons or something else.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 10:58 am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 10:24 am, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

You still did not put a stake in the ground, just walked around the
question and then walked away. One more chance before I place you in
"unsure". Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?
What is your call sign or do you prefer to remain as a unknown?

Incorrect; I gave a positive answer to the question. My answer was based
on
normal physics and identified what must, therefore, be paraphysical or
nonsense (or both). The equations don't make any reference to particles -
as I'm sure you are aware. As to the views of Maxwell, the person, I
daresay you can make them up to your heart's content without provable
challenge.

I don't much care what category you place me in - you already know how I
categorise people who make up their own versions of physics and expect
other
to believe them ... and sadly some appear to!

My call sign, if I have one, is none of your business.

Chris

O.k. So the thread as posted in the title is now closed. On the
question on the Gauss extension this is not understood so that is also
now closed. Insults? Well they can go on for ever as this is the main
attraction for its members.


What do you think gives you the power or the right to close a thread - is
this something written in the Usenet 'code of practice'? Surely, in
practice it will continue until all aspects of discussion have reached their
conclusions and more interesting threads have appeared.

Do yourself a favour Art, visit a technical library, read and try to
understand the real physics on which radio communication has been based. If
you have problems with any of the parts that are well documented then there
will be plenty of folk here who will be willing and able to illuminate,
including some with less time on their hands than myself who don't post very
often but have extensive knowledge. I think you will find it fascinating
how intelligence can be passed between two points in space without any need
for the passage of matter between them - all puns accepted!

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"joe" wrote ...

Your problem is not understanding the motion of charges in the antenna.

Sure, the derivative of a sine wave is 0 at the peak,

It is the math

but this does
not directly translate to the motion of the electrons
at specific locations in the antenna.

Look at the antenna current as an electron oscillating
back and forth between the ends. The position over time is described
by a function. Throughout the entire length, the electron is
changing velocity (accelerating).

Hint: the _voltage_ at the feed point may be described by a sine wave.
Your challenge is to determine how the electrons move in response
to that sine wave.

Part of understanding this is knowing the difference between what is
happing as time progresses at the different parts of the antenna.

The trick to understanding this is to carefully do and understand
the mathematics that are involved.

It is not easy to understand you. Math says that "the derivative of a sine
wave is 0 at the peak," next that it is not true and next that math is
always right.

Electrons flow free in feed line and are compressed in ends. After short
rest they come back to supply unit.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"JIMMIE" wrote
...
On Sep 14, 1:56 pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...



"Richard Fry" wrote
...

- - small snip --



QUOTE
A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the
region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or
vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa.

Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that
radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The
basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as:

IL = Qv (A m s^-1)

where

I = time-changing current, A s^-1
L = length of current element, m
Q = charge, C
v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the
charge, m s^-2

Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.

In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate?
S*

In all the parts that carry current, of course. Isn't that obvious?

Incidentally, who is A* ? ... the person who wrote:

Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations?
Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
A*

Chris

Could mean that Art and S are the same person, one does seem to appear
when the other disappears.

You are right. Few mans ago I was writting that Gauss law is enough to do
antennas. Of course not this for magnetism.
Static charge produces static electric field and pulsed (in the end of the
antena) alternating field. It is radiation. For me there are ether vaves.
For Art photons or something else.
S*


Which one of Gauss's two laws?

Chris

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
joe wrote:
Look at the antenna current as an electron oscillating
back and forth between the ends.

At HF frequencies, the electrons move hardly at all, tending
to oscillate back and forth in place. The idea that electrons
race from end to end in an antenna is simply false.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpeedOfElectrons

"... for a copper wire of radius 1 mm carrying a steady
current of 10 Amps, the drift velocity is only about
0.024 cm/sec!"

For a 100w 10 MHz RF wave, you can divide that distance by
more than 10,000,000. Exactly how far can the electron travel
in 0.05 microsecond?

It is the photons emitted by the electrons that travel at
the speed of light in the medium. That's the fields surrounding
the antenna conductor, not the electrons in the conductor.

It is for students. Hall and others developed technics to estimate how many
electrons are free in different metals.
It is not one per atom.
S*
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Where in Maxwell's equations does it refer to "particles" or
do they have no place in his views on radiation?

Linear math fails at the nonlinear point. There are
lots of examples. This is just one of them.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"christofire" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

At the ends are the max accelerations and the max radiation.
S*

No, you have it wrong again - the current must be zero at the ends, there
is nowhere for it to go, and there cannot be acceleration of charge is
there's no current.

Current will be when charges start their flow back to the supply. The
acceleration is close to end.

Please go away and read some books and the NEETS module to
which I provided the link.

Most of wrote that radiation is not fully known. I am trying to explain you.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Art Unwin wrote:
... it enables particles at rest ON radiators.

As far as RF is concerned, free electron particles indeed
do rest ON radiators. It's called "skin effect".
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

U¿ytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
At the ends are the max accelerations and the max radiation.

How can an electron accelerate at at open-circuit?
The acceleration is maximum at the current zero-
crossing with the greatest slope. That's at the
center of a 1/2WL dipole.

Accelerate and deccelerate. It is only possible with compressible electrons
(as electrn gas). It is impossible in Heavisde's hydraulic analogy.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Electrons flow free in feed line and are compressed in ends. After short
rest they come back to supply unit.

How can they possibly do that while traveling at
"0.024 cm/sec"?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
It is for students. Hall and others developed technics to estimate how
many electrons are free in different metals.
It is not one per atom.

Nobody said it is "one per atom".
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Spherical radiation pattern
 

U¿ytkownik "christofire" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

As I stand on the corner waving goodbye to that bus, I fondly recall
how the logic stood that no current could be found on the tips of
radiators, thus trim them off to no loss of radiation. It took very
few decades before Art had then recognized that his new antenna's tips
had no more current than the full-length one, and he trimmed that one
once again! New and improved (as the saying goes). Another decade
passed into the new millennium and he observed that he could extend
this logic once again to the point where his last design encompassed a
160M full sized antenna in the space of two shoe boxes. The TRIUMPH
OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS.

Is any simillarity between Art and Tesla?
Bill Miller wrote: "*But* Tesla's "antennas" were similar physically to
the well-known "Tesla
Coil." These antennas, in spite of their enormous size, were electrically
"small" when compared with a wavelength. They were essentially a metallic
ball that was fed from the secondary of a resonant transformer. But they
appear to have had fairly large effective bandwidths in spite of their
electrically small size,"
S*


Tesla created HF transformers. He didn't design them as antennas but,
because of their significant length at the operating wavelength, they did
act that way to some extent. The metallic ball (often a torus nowadays)
is a means of terminating the secondary in a way that reduces spurious
discharges - its radius of curvature is large.

It is than "tipping".

His ideas to distribute electrical power using Tesla coils were crazy and
dangerous, but some argue he was the inspiration for AC distribution at
much lower voltages, which is a good thing.

There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that
'Art Unwin' character. Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats
of hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. 'Professor
Unwin' doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about
his own, paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

In library are very old things. Will be there about tipping?
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:20:18 -0500, tom wrote:

So are his fantasies new?

Hi Tom,

By no means. The only thing that has changed over the years is that
he stopped his lamentations of being a martyr duct-taped to his
alumin(i)um crosses.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:52:19 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

No, you have it wrong again - the current must be zero at the ends, there is
nowhere for it to go, and there cannot be acceleration of charge is there's
no current. Please go away and read some books and the NEETS module to
which I provided the link.

Chris

Hi Chris,

This mistake is being compounded daily, so it seems. The "absence" of
current on any particular portion of the antenna is the superposition
of two currents flowing - hence the term "standing wave antenna."
Hence there is something of a paradox that where two currents reside
(the metal elements are continuous and conductive) it is said no
current flows. There is a correlation between this superposed
solution and the pattern of the far-field pattern but that does not
lead to the conclusion that there is no "acceleration" of charge at
the ends. After-all, the abundant alternating voltage at those same
ends is also charge, n'est pas? It could be as easily argued that
superposed voltage nodes also define the pattern of the far-field
pattern.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:21:17 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

Is any simillarity between Art and Tesla?

Do you have a photo of Art with a mustache?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Spherical radiation pattern
 

"christofire" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"JIMMIE" wrote
...
On Sep 14, 1:56 pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...



"Richard Fry" wrote
...

- - small snip --



QUOTE
A radio antenna may be defined as the structure associated with the
region of transition between a guided wave and a free-space wave, or
vice-versa. Antennas convert electrons to photons, or vice-versa.

Regardless of antenna type, all involve the same basic principle that
radiation is produced by accelerated (or decelerated) charge. The
basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as:

IL = Qv (A m s^-1)

where

I = time-changing current, A s^-1
L = length of current element, m
Q = charge, C
v = time change of velocity which equals the acceleration of the
charge, m s^-2

Thus, time-changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.

In which parts of antenna the charges acclerate?
S*

In all the parts that carry current, of course. Isn't that obvious?

Incidentally, who is A* ? ... the person who wrote:

Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations?
Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
A*

Chris

Could mean that Art and S are the same person, one does seem to appear
when the other disappears.

You are right. Few mans ago I was writting that Gauss law is enough to do
antennas. Of course not this for magnetism.
Static charge produces static electric field and pulsed (in the end of
the antena) alternating field. It is radiation. For me there are ether
vaves. For Art photons or something else.
S*


Which one of Gauss's two laws?
Above is wrote: "Of course not this for magnetism". The electric one.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Sep 15, 8:15*am, jaroslav lipka wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:06*pm, "christofire" wrote:



There is very little apparent similarity between Nicola Tesla and that 'Art
Unwin' character. *Tesla was an inventor who realised amazing feats of
hardware construction, some of which worked as intended. *'Professor Unwin'
doesn't appear to create anything in hardware - he just talks about his own,
paraphysical theories and expects others to believe what he says.

Again, don't believe what I write - go to a technical library and read the
stuff that made it into books. *You can't rely on what people write on the
internet; there are too many 'Unwins' out there.

Chris

* Hi Chris
* * * * * * * *The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal? *or to state it another way,
* * *How is it illegal to change a static field into a dynamic field?
can you, will you answer the question or are you just sitting on
Richards shirt tail.

*Jaro

Applying time to a static field doesn't make a static field a dynamic
field.

Jimmie

Spherical radiation pattern
 

U¿ytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Electrons flow free in feed line and are compressed in ends. After short
rest they come back to supply unit.

How can they possibly do that while traveling at
"0.024 cm/sec"?

Only in students homework.
S*

Spherical radiation pattern
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:15:04 -0700 (PDT), jaroslav lipka
wrote:

The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal?

Maxwell did exactly that and called it Gauss' Law (Gauss did not do it
in his law that he did not call Gauss' Law). History came along and
uses the same name for two laws. Maxwell acknowledged Gauss'
contribution for statics and applied time to them to arrive at
dynamics (and honored Gauss by naming his dynamics Gauss' Law). So
History and Maxwell have long observed TWO Gauss' laws - each
distinctive as the first being static, the second dynamic.

Art has never gotten past this historical hiccup.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC