On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:49:21 GMT, "
wrote:

No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious.

No Art, you are trolling. There is no one in this group who could
accelerate charge without power BUT YOU? Absurd in the extreme!

You have shown absolutely no interest in participating in a rational
discussion about the requirments of circular motion, but instead you
cavalierly discard all of established physics going back to Newton.

Hence your contempt of the topic clearly reveals you are trolling.

" wrote in message
news:l9nUc.268067$a24.245272@attbi_s03...
No Richard I am not trolling I am very serious. At the same time I am
always
wary of any aproach by you
as the subject always get shifted and then we are off to the races.
Cecil pointed it out correctly with respect to power. If you were to solve
a parallel circuit using complex circuit methyods the criteria is energy
conservation
but where individual parts change their form of energy s we cannot glibly
say that it revoves about
power or that I am referring to perpetual motion which is how Roy
dismisses
the thread but with no supporting data.
Now you say that accelleration and decellaration of protons are not the
true
basis for radiation
which certainly suggests that the subject is moot as the question starts
off
with a fallacy.
Art

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:13:14 GMT, "
wrote:

Soooooo I am reconciled to the fact
that
there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow
reasonable discussion.

In otherwords you are trolling.


While I do not believe you are trolling I can understand why others would
believe you are. I was not certain for a long time. The problem seems to be
a lack of common knowledge between you and those whom you are trying to
converse. To explain to you why you are wrong you first have to be educated
in antenna theory at least to an elementary degree. Unfortunately you tend
to reject the knowledge that other have learned over time, You read and try
to bend facts to fit your own preconceived ideas instead of taking them at
their face value. Frankly trying to explain something to you is so tedious
that most people just give up. If you truly want to learn you should try a
classroom environment. This is the wrong place to get all the information
you want starting at the ground up.

Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate simulated
AC.
If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.
You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using technical
details may not be deserved.
There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


" wrote in message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory, it is just
something that apears to be in error but I do not understand why so I
wanted
something we had to e4xplain in exams which came from first principles. It
was basic pricipals that I was looking for wether it be a comparison of
area
under a current curve per unit length compared to area when applied to a
circle or even possibly a mathematical analusis. Roys says I am in error
and
should accept it because he said so. He is knoweledgable but just his word
is not good enough.
Richard came in with his bag of tricks with the introduction of "power"
which if nothing is stated he is off and running with an augument on the
net. Ofcourse I did not fall for it, Soooooo I am reconciled to the
fact
that
there is not enough pertinent knoweledge out there that can allow
reasonable discussion.
Still I find no discrace in asking the question even tho it may advertise
my
own lack of knoweledge.
Note you referenced speed per unit length in terms of frequency where as
I
was refering to a constant speed
where the energy input should have transpire3d into acceleration buyt
instead added another vector that like a race care going round a circular
circuit. This is going at constant speed all the time with the foot hard
nown on the accelorator to counteract centrifugal forces evidenced by a
spray of dirt that continues at a consistent rate and not in cyclic form
if
one accelerates on a straight runway.
In both cases we have constant speeds but we also have a difference in
phases. Enough said. I have typed up the program to check things out again
which has amounted to 400 wire segments plus the use of 20 variables to
gauge the distances between each succesive coils so I can build the darn
thing again from scratch and thus satisfy myself
on the why's and where fores rather than partaking in what will become a
slanging thread that occurs in a somewhat regular fashion. If I am remiss
on
missing an actual true posting that discusses in detaILwhat I was
asking for then please draw my attention to it as I seemed somehow to have
missed it
Very best regards
Art
,
"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Art,
An interesting proposition. Acceleration of a radio wave.
If this succeeds, then does this mean that the wave travels 'faster'
than
other waves?
If that's true - and the wave does travels faster - then it follows that
the
*length* of the propogated wave would be shorter.
If the length is shorter - then we would perceive it as a shift in
frequency - because we assume all RF travels at the same speed.
For instance - if the wave 'started off' 2 meters long - and was
accelerated
to double the speed, then the wavelength would be only one meter long.
Our assumptions may be invalid.
We can only base our responses on what we have learned, but if this is
new,
then it folllows that we have not learned it yet.
Let's hear more about your theory.

" wrote in
message
news:VH6Uc.324209$XM6.205186@attbi_s53...
Gentlemen
I have in the past alluded not only radiation from a straight element
but
also the ADDITION of radiation
occuring from a bent element. Nobody has commented on the authentisity
of
this statement and I have not come acros anything in my own collection
of
books.
Now my present antenna consists of various loops connected in both a
clockwise and clockwise radiation form such that the circular
polarisation
cancells leaving pure vertical polarisation.. The loops are separatred
in
a
way that intercapacity of the spiral loops is reduced as well as
circular
cancellation All of this is based on my gut feeling that R.F.current
flowing
around a circular radiating element. What I ask for for those who have
a
deeper background of R.F. is verification of my assumption
that extra radiation becomes available.
Appreciate any comments on this irregular aproach as I cxannot find
guidance
in the books.
A serious question regarding added radiation from an element in the
hope
that insight is provided even tho it may expose the fallacy of my
aproach.
Thanks in advance
Art




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/30/2004

"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent
coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate
simulated
AC.
Well radiation is certainly a series of "pulses" as the radiation consists
of enclosed
waves and yet the speed of generation is constant and only the constituents
of total energy
undergo change. This is how I visualise creation of radiation on a straight
element.
Now we come to a element that is circular. I still see the generation
of radiation as generated on a strraight radiator but I now see that the
radiation has a component
as shown by a added vector as in centrifugal force which because the
radiator is circular
is constant. Now I am not proposing a new theory I am asking for a an
explanation why this is fallacious
Art

If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken
more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.


Don't we all ? But sometimes Roy's words of wisdom does not satisfy the
questioner
asks for the underpinnings of the statement. Roy feels an answer from him is
all that is required
as in the word of God and he is not interested in trivialities and may even
leave the group for a while

You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using
technical
details may not be deserved.

There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


I agree but a answer that states it does not obey natures laws if one cannot
supply the illustration on how it occurs
so any request for backup can easily be seen as rejection by some since the
words of God have been given

" wrote in
message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
delete What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory, it
is just
so

Egad. Please go back and read my postings. All I've said is that you
can't violate the law of conservation of energy. You shouldn't believe
this fundamental principle because Roy says you should -- you should
believe it because you've got a grasp of high school level physics, and
if you don't have a grasp of high school level physics, perhaps you
should get one before getting too carried away with theories about the
nature of radiation.

Of course, ignorance is bliss. If you disbelieve or simply choose to
ignore conservation of energy, you're then able to make perpetual motion
machines and other wonders, including any number of miracle antennas.

And Art, quit whining that "Roy feels an answer from him is
all that is required as in the word of God". What's required is that you
take the effort to learn a little fundamental physics. I'm sure you can
find an adequate explanation of the law of conservation of energy on the
web if you have an aversion to books -- written by someone other than
Roy. I'm not going to spoon-feed it to a reluctant learner.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
. . . Roys says I am in error and
should accept it because he said so. He is knoweledgable but just his
word
is not good enough. . .

Hal Rosser wrote:
. . . You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has
demonstrated his expertise in this area time and time again. . .

wrote:
. . .But sometimes Roy's words of wisdom does not satisfy the
questioner
asks for the underpinnings of the statement. Roy feels an answer from him is
all that is required
as in the word of God and he is not interested in trivialities and may even
leave the group for a while . . .

" wrote in message
news:1wnUc.272613$%_6.270403@attbi_s01...

"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent
coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate
simulated
AC.
Well radiation is certainly a series of "pulses" as the radiation consists
of enclosed
waves and yet the speed of generation is constant and only the
constituents
of total energy
undergo change. This is how I visualise creation of radiation on a
straight
element.
Now we come to a element that is circular. I still see the generation
of radiation as generated on a strraight radiator but I now see that the
radiation has a component
as shown by a added vector as in centrifugal force which because the
radiator is circular
is constant. Now I am not proposing a new theory I am asking for a an
explanation why this is fallacious
Art

If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken
more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.


Don't we all ? But sometimes Roy's words of wisdom does not satisfy the
questioner
asks for the underpinnings of the statement. Roy feels an answer from him
is
all that is required
as in the word of God and he is not interested in trivialities and may
even
leave the group for a while

You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using
technical
details may not be deserved.

There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


I agree but a answer that states it does not obey natures laws if one
cannot
supply the illustration on how it occurs
so any request for backup can easily be seen as rejection by some since
the
words of God have been given

" wrote in
message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
delete What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory,
it
is just
so


You will not get a meaningful answer to this because it is not a meanigful
question. It is just techno-babble.
OK if your are trolling have a good laugh on me, You have rattled this
monkey's cage. If not, I feel for you. You have serious problems.

Hi Hal
I'LL be happy to explain where I am coming from but this time I will try to
explain my thoughts
in a non technical way which may be seen as folksy which may well bring some
caustic comments
but I do owe it to all since I asked for help.
First
My aiim is to negate the onslaught of inductance and capacitance to ward
off rapid changes in
impedances
Secondly
I want to see what changes occur by using corregated material as radiators
compared to smooth surfaces..
Now I will rerlate how my thought processes work even tho they may be
totally out of whack
but it will help to explain the terms I use.

If one looks at an A.C. generator it can be seen that the shaft rotates at a
constant speed and
it helps to see this by attaching a ball on a string and tieing it to the
shaft. The circular motion when looking at the shaft endwise
makes the circular pattern very obvios. If however, you look at the shaft
side ways on what you will see is a ball going up and down
either siode of the shaft. If one moves the generator a short distance as
the ball takes one revolution
a sinosoidal; trace will be apparent arount the shaft axis which can be
interprete by some as showing acceleration and deceleration of current
even tho that hwich generates this trace or graph is rotating at a constant
spoeed
( This being important because it may be synonamous to some as compared to
the speed of light)
Now let us look at another version of movement in that the generator instead
of moving in a linear motion takes on a circular motion
and where the rotary speed of the shaft still revolves at a constant speed.
From this. we can say that the speed of energy along the radiator is still
the same as in the first example ,but what is different?
If the generator was moved forward in the fiirst instance there was an equal
and opposite reaction force which can be seen
as a cloud of dust as a car accelerates forward. In the second instance the
car traveling around a circular course showers dust in a continual
fashon away from the track even though it is proceding at a constant speed.
If we try to generate a graph of current versus time the dust generated on
a circular track is a constant i.e. then also the current
level on the graph must also be a constant value.
Now let us look at a current flow on a load on a antenna such as a coil
which is hellicaly wound.
We know that the phase will be constant around the first loop but in this
case we have added inductance and capacitance by virtue
of the close proximity of the next coil and the next coil e.t.c which varies
the impedance along the wire and thus rapidly effects
a movement away from a purely resistive impedance. This lead me into
separating the coils from each other by juxtaposition
so that inductances were not additive ( I reversed the coil direction as
well as positioning them apart.)
Since all these coils are connected in series one must hope for a
intercoupling effect will bring the current down on these
vertical portions in the event that radiation from them are of the correct
choice, either additive or detractive.
Thus the project is repeated from what I have done in the past only this
time I am using numourus loops in the event that
resulting antenna height will be eye opening as well as very broad banded.
As a follow up the corregations on the loops will be
removed by laying on the surfaces a flat adhesived back aluminum tape(Ihave
no copper tape) To try and ascertain what changes
occur by having a smooth surface radiator
Well Hal there you have it, possibly to long, possibly everything is wrong
and again possibly hopeless to understand
but it the best I can do
Regards
Art






"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...
Ok, so the acceleration is in the phase-shifting between the adjacent
coils
?
If I interpret that correctly, then its not a 'real' acceleration, but a
simulated acceleration - much like using pulsating DC to generate
simulated
AC.
If you could describe it in terms a normal dummy like myself could
understand or at least draw a better picture, your theory may be taken
more
seriously.
You say Roy's word is not good enough - But Roy has demonstrated his
expertise in this area time and time again.
I come here to learn from folks like Roy - and to inject some of my own
thoughts from time to time.
You come to the group asking for comments - and you got them.
You did not speak in terms of technical details - so a reply using
technical
details may not be deserved.
There is no disgrace in asking questions (like you said) - but rejecting
expert opinions can be seen as a disgrace in some instances.


" wrote in
message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...
Hi Hal, nice to meet you
What I have is not really a prposition or a legitimate theory, it is
just

Ahhh, what the hell...

" wrote in message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...

[...snip...] I was refering to a constant speed
where the energy input should have transpire3d into acceleration buyt
instead added another vector that like a race care going round a circular
circuit. ...



Art,

First, I re-state your basic situation to see if I understand it:

You have a constant speed around a circle. This, indeed does suggest the
normal radial acceleration (what is that... V/R^2 ? I don't remember). We
know that acceleration is defined as a change in velocity, where velocity
consists of both speed and direction. Speed being the distance traveled
along a path per unit of time. So, if we change the velocity direction (to
always be tangent to the circle) , but not the magnitude (or speed), then we
have acceleration - what we call radial acceleration. I believe this all to
be true. Are you with me this far and do I have your meaning correctly ?





Assuming the answers are yes, I continue to go into the part about energy
"transpiring" into something.



You say:

"the energy input should have transpire3d(sic) into acceleration

buyt(sic) instead added another vector".



This appears to be saying that something (the acceleration) is _not_
produced by said energy ("should have...") , but rather something else _is_
produced ("...another vector").

The words you use in these two parts describe only one thing, yet you
imply (by the words: "buyt instead") that they are different things. Radial
acceleration is a vector directed toward the center of the circle. It is
the 'radial acceleration vector'. Therefore, if your energy _DID_
"transpire" or more correctly, produce this "other vector" then it _DID_
indeed go to produce the acceleration -- because this vector _IS_ the
acceleration. They are ways of talking about the same thing. I can't
figure out what you mean.



Whether or not it takes energy to cause this circular acceleration is
another matter I haven't addressed yet since the basic premises must be
cleared up first.

I also think you are wondering if this radial acceleration does some
special radiation that is different from the radiation of the charge simply
by virtue of its 'normal' non circular movement. However that's also
another issue, after we clarify the basics here.



Then you say:

"In both cases we have constant speeds but we also have

a difference in phases. "



You keep mentioning "constant speed" yet we are talking, I thought,
about an antenna with RF current in it. If this is the case, there is _NO_
constant speed of the current. It is constantly varying in a sine wave.
It has a sinusoidal speed variation and therefore a sinesiodal acceleration
(acceleration being the derivative of velocity and cosine being the
derivative of sine) So you seem to be applying two concepts (constant
speed and . sinusoidal variation in speed) in one situation. I believe
this is invalid and may be the source of your confusion.



Also, I don't know where this "phases" comes from. Lost me here unless
you are talking about the relative phase of two different windings of this
circular wire you mentioned a while ago...



Please explain what I have wrong, if the case.





Enough said. I have typed up the program [...snip...]



What language are you programming in and what formulas are you using ?



Steve N.
--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

"Steve Nosko" wrote in message
...
Ahhh, what the hell...

" wrote in
message
news:dJeUc.269797$%_6.33856@attbi_s01...

[...snip...] I was refering to a constant speed
where the energy input should have transpire3d into acceleration buyt
instead added another vector that like a race care going round a
circular
circuit. ...



Art,

First, I re-state your basic situation to see if I understand it:

You have a constant speed around a circle.
Yes

This, indeed does suggest the
normal radial acceleration (what is that... V/R^2 ? I don't remember).
Yes

We
know that acceleration is defined as a change in velocity, where velocity
consists of both speed and direction.
yes
Speed being the distance traveled
along a path per unit of time
yes
.. So, if we change the velocity direction (to
always be tangent to the circle) , but not the magnitude (or speed), then
we
have acceleration - what we call radial acceleration.

Not sure if I follow that.with respect to terms If what I said is what you
are saying
AOK

In the case of circular course constant speed energy must be inputed
to overcome radial force and ofcourse every action has an equal and opposite
reaction
I believe this all to
be true. Are you with me this far and do I have your meaning correctly ?
It would appear so subject to my statements above
It would apear that it is so



Assuming the answers are yes, I continue to go into the part about energy
"transpiring" into something.

o.k.

You say:

"the energy input should have transpire3d(sic) into acceleration

buyt(sic) instead added another vector".



This appears to be saying that something (the acceleration) is _not_
produced by said energy ("should have...") , but rather something else
_is_
produced ("...another vector").

I am saying that energy is inputed to maintain constant speed which can be
seen
as creating a CONSTANT force vector at a tangent


The words you use in these two parts describe only one thing, yet you
imply (by the words: "buyt instead") that they are different things.
Yes because when the radiator is straight it is phase change that creates
cyclic
current change ala accelleration.
In the case of a circular radiator I understand that there is no phase
change
a nd the radiation vector is a constant. This may well be the nubb of the
misunderstanding.

Radial
acceleration is a vector directed toward the center of the circle. It
is
the 'radial acceleration vector'. Therefore, if your energy _DID_
"transpire" or more correctly, produce this "other vector" then it _DID_
indeed go to produce the acceleration -- because this vector _IS_ the
acceleration. They are ways of talking about the same thing. I can't
figure out what you mean.



Whether or not it takes energy to cause this circular acceleration is
another matter I haven't addressed yet since the basic premises must be
cleared up first.

I also think you are wondering if this radial acceleration does some
special radiation that is different from the radiation of the charge
simply
by virtue of its 'normal' non circular movement. However that's also
another issue, after we clarify the basics here.
That is correct in that current variation is constant in one case and cyclic
in the other
which inferes that over a cycle the area under the cyclic current curve is
the same as that seen
under a constant curren and it is this comparison that I was looking for in
literature.



Then you say:

"In both cases we have constant speeds but we also have

a difference in phases. "
Yes I see the phase change as shown by the current curve.
and in the case of circular motion I do not see a phase change ( I cos phi )



You keep mentioning "constant speed" yet we are talking, I thought,
about an antenna with RF current in it.

Yes

If this is the case, there is _NO_
constant speed of the current. It is constantly varying in a sine wave.
It has a sinusoidal speed variation and therefore a sinesiodal
acceleration
(acceleration being the derivative of velocity and cosine being the
derivative of sine)

Yes I agree. That would be of the value I cos phi with cos phi providing the
sign wave
I believe we are saying the same thing

So you seem to be applying two concepts (constant
speed and . sinusoidal variation in speed) in one situation. I
believe
this is invalid and may be the source of your confusion.

It may well be a difference of terms applied but I am pleased you follow
the main drift of what I was saying so you could be well armed to
correct me where I was wrong.



Also, I don't know where this "phases" comes from. Lost me here
unless
you are talking about the relative phase of two different windings of this
circular wire you mentioned a while ago...

No that was in reference to the new model antenna that I am making

Please explain what I have wrong, if the case.





Enough said. I have typed up the program [...snip...]



What language are you programming in and what formulas are you using ?

Steve it is a computor program that chooses or finds the best dimension for
an inputed variable.
plus can handle a large number of segments'''''''
I have many circular radiators in a horizontal position but at different
heights.
All have a gap in the circle and half are wound in an opposite direction to
the other coils.
All of these loops are connected to each other by vertical members the
length of which depends
on the cosequtive height of the loops... These vertical portions become high
voltage and low current member
when requiring best efficiency. The impotant thing in this arrangement is
the correct selection of the up
then down positions of the loops for the feed input requirements.
You cannot research the best positions of the loops with Roy's program as it
is the basic of basics and
posibly not enough segments available but most programs of today DO offer
many variable dimensions
with more than enough segments ( I used 20 segments for each loop)
I am very pleased that you connected the dots of my question which shows I
am not a troll.
My spelling is bad because this new computor has small letters on the screen
and with a
3 Gig Hz speed it is difficult to keep up to speed with a braille keyboard
Hi, Hi.
My very best regards to you and thanks for hanging in there as opposed to a
derogatory comment
Art.
AS

Steve N.
--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

[... snipping all the agreed to parts so far...Sorry, but all the history is
just too much…not to mention what follows! …. . . . . . . . ]



ALSO, ART. PLEASE do something to make your responses obvious in the body
of text, like line spaces, or lots of asterisks or something so I can find
your responses.



***** maybe like this



Also, you can use a word processor to compose these messages and get the
benefit of a spel chek. Hi hi , I am right now, then Cut & Paste into your
news-reader.

On to the topic…



Steve said:

So, if we change the velocity direction (to
always be tangent to the circle) , but not

the magnitude (or speed), then we
have acceleration - what we call radial acceleration.



Art:
Not sure if I follow that.



Steve: I am only describing what it takes to get motion around a circle.
It is basic physics. I'll try saying it several other ways:

The "thing" which represents the acceleration that is causing
the movement in a circle _IS_ a vector pointing toward the center of the
circle. The object is being accelerated toward the center of its orbit.
Its acceleration _IS_ directed at the center.

Another way to say it is; "In order to get the thing to travel
in a circle, you must accelerate it toward the center of said circle and
this acceleration is caused by a constant force toward the center and can be
represented by a vector pointing toward the center.

Good old F = MA is also a vector equation. That is, it can be
used to account for the direction of forces and accelerations. If the force
is in a given direction, then the acceleration is also in that same
direction. (a logical conclusion is that the acceleration is also changing
in order to remain pointing at the center as the thing moves around the
circle)

It appears that you call the acceleration one thing and the
vector another, but they are the same thing, not two different things. So
it appears to me that you are trying to make the vector something else, or
something new to get some new effect. This is where I am confused as to
just what you are thinking is the effect.





[...skipping ahead, some, but basically repeating in new terms ...]



ART:
I am saying that energy is inputed to maintain constant speed which can be
seen as creating a CONSTANT force vector at a tangent…



Steve: Yes, (in _uniform_, or constant circular motion) it takes a
constant inward force to get the constant inward acceleration which results
in the constant circular motion. HOWEVER, I have a SERIOUS problem with this
word "CONSTANT" in this context – I address below.




Steve: Moving away from the basics of uniform circular motion and on to RF
in a wire.



ART:
Yes because when the radiator is straight it is phase change that creates
cyclic current change ala accelleration.



Steve: OK, so we are back to this electron flow in a straight wire
following the sinewave in current, or "cyclic current change ", to use your
terms. Sure.

I don't under your cause and your effect here because I do not
understand what it is that you refer to when you use the words "phase
change".

It is the _generator_ (or transmitter) which is causing the
current and all the acceleration(s)...many per second. The generator
produces EMF or voltages which alternately drive current first one way, then
the other, in this sine wave fashion – along the wire. EMF (Electro Motive
Force) is call this because it acts like a force to move electrons (causing
current) in the wire. It is this force which causes the accelerations and
motions.

The generator accelerates the electrons, not what you call "phase change"--I
don't know what this means. There is a change in _current_ over time, but
NOT phase.



Art:

In the case of a circular radiator I understand that there is no phase
change a nd the radiation vector is a constant. This may well be the nubb
of the
misunderstanding.



Steve: I think there is a definite nubb here! You appear to have jumped
to DC away from RF. We should be talking about the SAME type of varying
current, therefore there is still the sinewave form of current flow, the
same accelerations. We do have an added velocity change around the circle,
but we haven't taken away the sinewave of current





Steve: I also think you are wondering if this radial acceleration does
some
special radiation that is different from the radiation of the charge
simply…



ART:

That is correct in that current variation is constant in one case and
cyclic
in the other



Steve: First, I wouldn't use phrases like "current variation is
constant". Either there is a variation, or it is constant. This phrase
implies that something is varying in a very repeatable or constant manner,
like a sine wave or square wave or triangle wave.



To answer the content of this comment, most emphatically NO! There is
always the cyclic, sinewave variation in current when you bend a current
carrying conductor into a circle. The AC sine wave doesn't go away.





Steve: I skip the area under the curve comment and continue with comments
on your cosine reference.





ART:
Yes I see the phase change as shown by the current curve.



Steve You gotta drop this "phase change" phrase. I think you simply mean
the voltage change over time, meaning the sine wave of current that is a
given in this situation.





ART:
and in the case of circular motion I do not see a phase change ( I cos
phi )





Ahhhh! OK, perhaps this direction will help. Lets talk about your
formula

I COS(phi) which is, of course I*COS(phi).



This formula gives the current at any _instant in time_ when you
plug-in that value of time. However, "phi" is NOT one number. This is
actually I*COS(wt) that's omega times "t". This is the formula, or
mathematical function of the sinewave of an AC signal of constant
frequency…just what we are talking about.



This is "I", which is the peak magnitude of the current under
discussion, times the cosine of the angle given by multiplying the frequency
(omega) by the present value of time – Which is CONSTANTLY INCREASING as
time progresses! This means that the current is constantly changing. If
you plot these values versus time on a graph, you see our friend the sine
wave and the tops and bottoms are exactly "I" high (away from zero).



Steve:
You keep mentioning "constant speed" yet we are talking, I thought,
about an antenna with RF current in it.

ART: Yes

STEVE: If this is the case, there is _NO_
constant speed of the current. It is constantly varying in a sine
wave.
It has a sinusoidal speed variation and therefore a sinusoidal
acceleration

Yes I agree. That would be of the value I cos phi with cos phi providing
the
sign wave. I believe we are saying the same thing



STEVE:

Then I am unable to understand where you are going. I see nothing new (
in regards to the basic physics above) created by the antenna being in a
circle. We just have AC flowing in a circle.



Some of the problem is your un conventional use of the terminology which
makes the transfer of the underlying concepts & ideas difficult. It is ok
to not be formally schooled in a subject. You can be what we call
"self-educated", but you must learn to use the terminology in he correct
ways (according to the way the vast majority of us use it) or you won't be
able to make yourself understood or understand others. Like I tell my
students, you MUST learn the terminology and use it correctly--- while in
both cases your head may really hurt, there is a world of difference between
a headache and a subdural hematoma!



ART: It may well be a difference of terms applied but I am pleased you
follow
the main drift of what I was saying so you could be well armed to
correct me where I was wrong.



Steve:

You go on to describe what seems to be an antenna composed of several large
horizontal, circular, or perhaps better described as helical, elements
stacked one above another, where some are wound in right-hand sense and
others in left-hand sense. I'll not go there because I believe you are
looking for some kind of a new phenomenon which is the result of this
arrangement. This may sound elitist, but I believe you are trying to
discover new physical principles with limited knowledge of the physical
world. It appears to me that your limited knowledge and ability to put
concepts to words leads you to believe there is a magic bullet just waiting
to be stumbled upon and that you can do it.

Antennas, past the simple dipole (although the basics of radiation is a
great source of confusion in itself) get complex really fast. A firm
understanding of how the currents in all parts of an antenna cause remote
fields that superimpose to cause the total, resulting field is critical to
being able to devise new and improved antennas, if they exist.

Go ahead and have fun modeling antennas. See what comes out of various
configurations. I recommend starting out simple to give yourself some
understanding of 'what' causes 'what'. Using this, build a model in your
brain (one that suits you) which ALWAYS explains all the observer phenomena
as you move along. Your model must NEVER violate any laws of physics or
fundamental principles which are known to be true. All this must also make
sense or "fit" when viewed with all other fundamental concepts, but
understand that much will be mysterious to you without this understanding.



I applaud your desire to learn and experiment, while I am sad that you have
insufficient background preventing you from seeing some of the real beauty
of the natural phenomena we call electronics.

My very best regards to you and thanks for hanging in there as opposed to
a
derogatory comment
Art.

It saddens me when I read some of what is posted. Hams are generally a very
friendly lot, but the Internet (UseNet in particular) somehow releases the
evil in some. We all have our weaker moments. Some of us are just a lot
closer to them than others. All I can do is a Tsk, Tsk and move on.



I must lead my life to a higher standard… It's a dirty job, but somebody's
got to do it.

Some people go to church and then cut you off and swear at you in traffic.
I don't do either any more.

73, Steve