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?