Computer model experiment
 

On May 19, 1:04*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"I just completed an experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until it
was close to .003 ohms resistive. What this means is the current flow is
right at the surface where there is no skin depth penetration involved
and it is close to zero material resistance. This means the total
resistance is the resistance of the surface encapsulating particles. The
radiation was 35 db in a shape close to that of a sphere."



Ask yourself if the exerimental results are reasonable.
Why
Reasonable means no change from the deductions made in the past aka
resistance to change.

An experiment is an action which requires an explanation otherwise
there is no reason to do it.
I had no expectations of what the results would be that I would have
to provide an explanation for.

Superconductivity reduces resistance which could correlate with
removal of fields from that which the current is applied. If this is
correct I sq R suggests
increased radiation. This would appear reasonable
If the fields transferred to a nearby medium whether it be a
encapsulating material or just a nearby substance one has transfered
the problem
to one where the fields in a adjacent material is handled and where
the applied power is applied to a member without resistance.
Is that reasonable ? Yes it is. Explanable is another question. This
is the very reason for any experiment
with respect to education. Reasonable means that
it does not meet expectations which, if we are not willing to think
about, means discoveries are impossible.
First question to ask is superconductivity a reality ?
Second is whether antenna programs are to be trusted?
I did the experiment with purchased material and it gave me the above
results which I am sharing.
So the question becomes is it correct and why is it not correct. First
thing to look at obviously is can a field or fields be removed from a
conductor?
In boundary laws if we don't consider the passage
of static particles that enter the boundary compared to those that
leave the boundary then things become awkward because we also know
that we are taking account of flux transitions.
If Gaussian laws state that static particles can become dynamic then
the answer is that fields can
exist beyond the sphere to which current is applied.
Now that is my personal suggested interpretation of what happens to
provide agreement with the experiment findings. Other interpretations
provided could appear more valid.
I am not equipped to comment on the validity of the computer programs
as Maxwells equations do not explicitly explain the mechanics of
radiation so I leave it to others to provide better answers for the
situation seen above. Yes, I know that the interpretation of Maxwell
is not fully supplied in the books so I invite others to advance
suitable explanations. Is that so bad?

Computer model experiment
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On May 19, 3:55 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
It seems that radio waves are produced from ends of the wire where the
voltage is doubled (at least)

The quantum electrodynamics process for the generation of EM waves is
well understood. The electron carriers in the wire are alternately
accelerated and decelerated by the transmit signal energy. During the
acceleration process, electrons absorb energy. During the deceleration
process, electrons emit photons, the quantum particles associated with
the radiated EM waves. Electrons at the ends of a wire dipole are not
accelerated as much as the electrons in the middle of the dipole.

It was a few weeks ago.
Electrons are decelerated at the ands of the dipole.
Next they accelerate and in the middle (of the oryginal Hertz dipole) the
speed of electrons is constant (no acceleration/deceleration).

In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons, QED or like sound.

"QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged
particles interacting by means of exchange of photons".

QED is about Photons, not EM waves. Photons have the analogy in phonons. So
radio waves are like the sound.
S*

Computer model experiment
 

On May 19, 2:03*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
QED is about Photons, not EM waves.

From "QED", by Feynman: "So now, I present to you the three basic
actions,
from which all the phenomena of light (EM waves) and electrons arise.

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

Photons and EM waves are the same quantized phenomena, viewed in
different mathematical ways. A single photon can pass through two
slots
at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Computer model experiment
 

On May 10, 12:35*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

Extra information
When resonant at 50 ohms resistive the donut shape was evident and
provided by two vortices.
As the resonant value dropped so did the depth of the two vortices
At 5 ohms resistive the vortice depth really started to reduce in
depth.In other words as the vortice reduced so did the skin depth and
where the reduction in vortice volume was taken up by radiation. When
the resonant point was brought to a fraction of an ohm the vortices
had virtually disappeared and the radiation increased such that the
total radiation became a sphere which equated to a maximum radiation
value. Dropping the resonant value below zero ohms removed the
radiation pattern from its normal progression.
This would infer that zero displacement current was generated which
means that particles were only elevated and not projected or
accelerated in any particular direction which thus permits a sphere of
radiation, contrary to that where particles were accelerated in any
particular direction. Note that it is the intersection of two fields
that created acceleration and direction as shown on my antenna page
and with direction the donut shape is retained. Thus this line of
logic supports the idea of a spherical radiation pattern as, with the
absence of resistance so goes the absence of eddy or displacement
current.

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/19/2010 10:47 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 10, 12:35 pm, Art wrote:
I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

Extra information
When resonant at 50 ohms resistive the donut shape was evident and
provided by two vortices.
As the resonant value dropped so did the depth of the two vortices
At 5 ohms resistive the vortice depth really started to reduce in
depth.In other words as the vortice reduced so did the skin depth and

Wow! I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On May 19, 11:09*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/19/2010 10:47 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On May 10, 12:35 pm, Art *wrote:
I just completed a experiment with my antenna optimizer program where
I had a dipole in free space and where I increased the diameter until
it was close to.003 ohms resistive
What this means is the current flow is right at the surface where
there is no skin depth
penetration involved and thus close to zero material resistance. This
means that the total resistance is the radiation resistance of the
surface encapsulating particles. The radiation was 35 db in a shape
close to that of a sphere. (when the resistance of the aluminum dipole
went to zero the radiation went to a perfect sphere) Efficiency was
stated at 100% efficient pointing to 100% accountability for all
forces involved and where losses were at a minimum.
Regards
Art

Extra information
When resonant at 50 ohms resistive the donut shape was evident and
provided by two vortices.
As the resonant value dropped so did the depth of the two vortices
At 5 ohms resistive the vortice depth really started to reduce in
depth.In other words as the vortice reduced so did the skin depth and

Wow! *I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

The presence of these vortices are used to determine imperfections in
materials during manufacturing processes. Removing the presence of
such is the primary reason for laminations instead of solids in the
manufacture of transformers.I am surprised that you are not familiar
with the concept of skin depth when at the same time you consider
yourself as an expert with respect to antennas. The antenna program I
use is
AO Pro purely because it has an optimizer to ensure Maxwell's
equations are adhered to as well as accountability for all vectors
involved. Planar devices are quite efficient such as the Yagi but
planar devices are not in equilibrium which is a requirement of
Maxwell's equations! I imagine that with any program you could fiddle
with a dipole
construction such that it was resonant at a very low impedance to
obtain a progression for radiation
pattern /volume versus impedance if it does not posses optimization
abilities. The free EZNEC program probably will be good enough.
As far as vortices are concerned the same two vectors used with
antennas are also evident with the Earth's weather system. For
instance, a tornado
or a whirlpool presents a vortice by virtue of the intersection of two
vectors involved. Remove one intersecting vector and the vortice
disappears. This is an example of what Einstein saw with respect to
his leanings on the unified theory.

Computer model experiment
 

Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 19, 2:03 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
QED is about Photons, not EM waves.

From "QED", by Feynman: "So now, I present to you the three basic
actions,
from which all the phenomena of light (EM waves) and electrons arise.

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

Photons and EM waves are the same quantized phenomena, viewed in
different mathematical ways. A single photon can pass through two
slots at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side.

I wrote: "In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons, QED or like sound."

So you prefer the all.
The "like sound" is the oldest and explain the all phenomena.
The new ones: EM, photons, QED explain only some. They are the fantastic
pieces to teach.
S*

Computer model experiment
 

On May 20, 11:42*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
The "like sound" is the oldest and explain the all phenomena.

"All phenomena", including traveling at the speed of light in a
vacuum? :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/19/2010 11:45 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Wow! I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

The presence of these vortices are used to determine imperfections in
materials during manufacturing processes. Removing the presence of
such is the primary reason for laminations instead of solids in the
manufacture of transformers.I am surprised that you are not familiar
with the concept of skin depth when at the same time you consider
yourself as an expert with respect to antennas. The antenna program I
use is
AO Pro purely because it has an optimizer to ensure Maxwell's
equations are adhered to as well as accountability for all vectors
involved. Planar devices are quite efficient such as the Yagi but
planar devices are not in equilibrium which is a requirement of
Maxwell's equations! I imagine that with any program you could fiddle
with a dipole
construction such that it was resonant at a very low impedance to
obtain a progression for radiation
pattern /volume versus impedance if it does not posses optimization
abilities. The free EZNEC program probably will be good enough.
As far as vortices are concerned the same two vectors used with
antennas are also evident with the Earth's weather system. For
instance, a tornado
or a whirlpool presents a vortice by virtue of the intersection of two
vectors involved. Remove one intersecting vector and the vortice
disappears. This is an example of what Einstein saw with respect to
his leanings on the unified theory.

Oh that's right, I forgot. You use my god child. I asked Brian to do
that program for 2 or 3 years before he finally did. I was the alpha
tester on it and other of his programs.

You do know that's just MiniNEC, right? With all the problems MiniNEC
has included for your computing pleasure.

It's off frequency - low. And it gets worse as the wire diameter
INCREASES. Which is what you are doing in your example.

It also doesn't like bent wires, as in things that don't meet at 180
degrees. It breaks down completely at less than 28 degrees.

It doesn't like adjacent segments that are in a ratio greater than 2 to 1.

And it doesn't like adjacent wires that are closer than .23 of a segment
length.

Given some of the things you have posted that you have modeled, I'd
guess that you break a minimum of 1, normally 2, and sometimes 3 of the
above conditions.

No wonder your stuff acts abnormal.

And you are using this tool to attempt to prove your twisted theories
about Maxwell's equations? That's like using a chain saw to do brain
surgery.

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

On May 20, 6:54*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/19/2010 11:45 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



Wow! *I'd really like to see this vortex, sorry these vortices, that you
have produced.

Is the rotation right or left handed?

This is REALLY COOL!

Please post the file and which optimizer software that you are using.

Thanks!

tom
K0TAR

The presence of these vortices are used to determine imperfections in
materials during manufacturing processes. Removing the presence of
such is the primary reason for laminations instead of solids in the
manufacture of transformers.I am surprised that you are not familiar
with the concept of skin depth when at the same time you consider
yourself as an expert with respect to antennas. The antenna program I
use is
AO Pro purely because it has an optimizer to ensure Maxwell's
equations are adhered to as well as accountability for all vectors
involved. Planar devices are quite efficient such as the Yagi but
planar devices are not in equilibrium which is a requirement of
Maxwell's equations! I imagine that with any program you could fiddle
with a dipole
construction such that it was resonant at a very low impedance to
obtain a progression for radiation
pattern /volume versus impedance if it does not posses optimization
abilities. The free EZNEC program probably will be good enough.
As far as vortices are concerned the same two vectors used with
antennas are also evident with the Earth's weather system. For
instance, a tornado
or a whirlpool presents a vortice by virtue of the intersection of two
vectors involved. Remove one intersecting vector and the vortice
disappears. This is an example of what Einstein saw with respect to
his leanings on the unified theory.

Oh that's right, I forgot. *You use my god child. *I asked Brian to do
that program for 2 or 3 years before he finally did. *I was the alpha
tester on it and other of his programs.

You do know that's just MiniNEC, right? *With all the problems MiniNEC
has included for your computing pleasure.

It's off frequency - low. *And it gets worse as the wire diameter
INCREASES. *Which is what you are doing in your example.

It also doesn't like bent wires, as in things that don't meet at 180
degrees. *It breaks down completely at less than 28 degrees.

It doesn't like adjacent segments that are in a ratio greater than 2 to 1..

And it doesn't like adjacent wires that are closer than .23 of a segment
length.

Given some of the things you have posted that you have modeled, I'd
guess that you break a minimum of 1, normally 2, and sometimes 3 of the
above conditions.

No wonder your stuff acts abnormal.

And you are using this tool to attempt to prove your twisted theories
about Maxwell's equations? *That's like using a chain saw to do brain
surgery.

tom
K0TAR

All very interesting Tom but frankly you lack credibility. As with
other posts of yours you do not provide specifics and more than often
express opinions. I personally am as pleased as punch in what I
purchased from Brian and I certainly do not believe he would foist on
the ham community anything but his best. Knowing that he is not
exactly a peoples person I suspect he would not shy from a clash with
you when you distribute your personal opinions. So I can imagine why
such a person like you would jump at the chance to savage another's
personality. For my part I use the program strictly for his adherence
to Maxwell's equations which is the approach that I take. This allows
for an over check most times when ensuring
that arrays proffered meet the condition of equilibrium of each part
and all of the provided
array. I doubt very much you would have strayed beyond the Yagi and
other planar designs when testing, but then you are not short of
claiming anything that may boost your position in life.
Thanks for your operative points offered and I will certainly consider
them within the specific technical confines which you so gently
provided.
Regards
Art