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

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

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*

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

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

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

"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*

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

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*

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