On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:26:50 -0500, tom wrote:

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Sorry, I meant "in".

As discontinuities are abhorred in nature, then "in" (in reality)
negates the sophist's intellectualized "in." Fields (in reality) do
reside with"in" a conductor.

The problem is how far "in" not if "in."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 8/29/2010 8:47 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:26:50 -0500, wrote:

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Sorry, I meant "in".

As discontinuities are abhorred in nature, then "in" (in reality)
negates the sophist's intellectualized "in." Fields (in reality) do
reside with"in" a conductor.

The problem is how far "in" not if "in."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You are so picky. Can't you allow abbreviation at all?

tom
K0TAR

On 8/29/2010 10:17 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:


Here's a quote from "Fields and Waves ...", by Ramo and Whinnery:

"A perfect conductor is usually understood to be a material in which
there is no electric field at any frequency. Maxwell's equations
ensure that there is then also no time-varying magnetic field in the
perfect conductor."
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Yeah, like a superconductor would be able to "speak" to the ether
directly ... as, I think, Art is implying ...

Regards,
JS

On Aug 28, 6:15*pm, K1TTT wrote:

old hat, come on art, you can do better than try to latch onto someone
else's patent:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5105200.html

Where is the beef? Where is the patent? What exactly do you think the
patent is claiming?
Is the claim legitimate? Has the ham community
agreed on the removal of an external magnetic field for maximum
efficiency? You have consistently denied over the years and now
miraculesly you rush to defend it. Why are you so evil? As I stated
earlier your intuitions are leading you astray in the absence of
physics teachings or classes. Go to the Physics forum and ask for the
truth.

i just want to you say more silly stuff, i need a good laugh this
weekend.

You evil evil man... chortle..
Superconductor, whooplaconductor.. My antennas already
function in the 90% plus range as far as efficiency.
If I used superconductor material for these antennas instead
of ordinary wire, would that make me a radio bully? :/
As one mentioned the other day.. It takes time to conjure up
good baffle gab, but I knew that comment would bring the baffler out
of the woodwork in short order. I was not disappointed.

The lack of comprehension of fundamental physics on this newsgroup is
astounding, so it's no surprise that a less-known fact has been missed:

A superconductor has zero resistance only at DC. The resistance at RF
depends, among other things, the frequency and the material's
temperature. Because the resistivity of copper drops dramatically at
cryogenic temperatures, it can be difficult to make a superconductor
with resistance as low as copper at the same temperature.

Very small superconducting antennas have been demonstrated, but they
still have a very large near field which sustains loss by coupling to
nearby objects, and a large reactance which necessitates potentially
lossy matching networks.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:22:11 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

The lack of comprehension of fundamental physics on this newsgroup is
astounding, so it's no surprise that a less-known fact has been missed:

A superconductor has zero resistance only at DC. The resistance at RF
depends, among other things, the frequency and the material's
temperature. Because the resistivity of copper drops dramatically at
cryogenic temperatures, it can be difficult to make a superconductor
with resistance as low as copper at the same temperature.

Zero resistance is not strictly a function of direct current. It is
simply the most often reported experimental characteristic in the
popular press. Impracticality of the additional RF characteristic
(which I presume in this forum to be confined to UHF and below) is
unwarranted in materials research at this point, but EHF/IR and above
results are frequently reported in association with other research -
plasmonics and phonon/electron interaction.

The resistivity of copper falls with temperature, true, but we
encounter diminishing returns as we approach absolute zero: the drop
fails to follow through to the expected final zero resistance. This
was an experimental dissappointment decades ago. Silver and gold are
rarely chosen for their electrical properties in the nano-dimension -
chilled or otherwise (although gold is suitable, gold is far more
useful in association with thiols). In fact, what are typically poor
conductors exhibit less low temperature resistance than copper (cold
or warm). I won't go into that list, it is enough to consider that
such "wires" would be confined to thin film depositions on a flexible
tape substrate - pretty exotic.

Going further, it isn't even necessary to drive temperatures to the
basement for improved conduction. Carbon nanotubes are exemplars of
high conductivity (several orders of magnitude better than what we
consider good metals) at room temperature where a carbon macrotube
would be called a resistor. Conductivity and superconductivity
research has long ago left the realm of temperature and has entered
the realm of crystal alignment.

However, even this academic. Carbon Nanotube construction at a scale
to compete with standard copper wire is off by a scale of a million to
billions (of dollars, much less practicability).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Going further, it isn't even necessary to drive temperatures to the
basement for improved conduction. Carbon nanotubes are exemplars of
high conductivity (several orders of magnitude better than what we
consider good metals) at room temperature where a carbon macrotube
would be called a resistor. Conductivity and superconductivity
research has long ago left the realm of temperature and has entered
the realm of crystal alignment.

However, even this academic. Carbon Nanotube construction at a scale
to compete with standard copper wire is off by a scale of a million to
billions (of dollars, much less practicability).

This may have changed also, I'm no expert in superconductors (though I
do play one on TV) Don't the high temperature superconductors have
issues with current capacity, and does this translate into problems with
impedance?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:54:25 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

Going further, it isn't even necessary to drive temperatures to the
basement for improved conduction. Carbon nanotubes are exemplars of
high conductivity (several orders of magnitude better than what we
consider good metals) at room temperature where a carbon macrotube
would be called a resistor. Conductivity and superconductivity
research has long ago left the realm of temperature and has entered
the realm of crystal alignment.

However, even this academic. Carbon Nanotube construction at a scale
to compete with standard copper wire is off by a scale of a million to
billions (of dollars, much less practicability).

This may have changed also, I'm no expert in superconductors (though I
do play one on TV) Don't the high temperature superconductors have
issues with current capacity, and does this translate into problems with
impedance?

Hi Mike,

High temperature is a relative thing (being it is measured in the 10s
of Kelvins for high temperature superconductivity).

However, Impedance? In the convetional application here in this
forum, it is a remote consideration for research. Afterall, nothing
has changed about the usual characterisitics of conduction,
inductance, or capacitance except for conduction's magnitude/density.

Aside from the conventional discussion here, researchers do tons of
work in the realm of superconductivity that employs radiation. That
body of research is called Plasmonics and Excitonics. Phononics
doesn't strictly apply because it is, by definition, high temperature.

Most of the research into subresonant structures is done in the
nanoscale. What is discussed here as possibilities in that same
regard is sheer nonsense. However, there have been glimmers of
nanoscale research reaching out into the macro dimension.

I've posted such items from Boeing's skunk works on negative
refractive index material research. It is something that could be
modeled in NEC - but only at a vastly expansive scale with hours of
computer time to run.

I am going to broach a taboo and see if an attachment of a split-ring
resonator would be supported.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC