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.