"Art Unwin" wrote

When viewing the antenna from an equilibrium point of view which is a
staple requirement of all electrical laws
one must assume that all forces/vectors equal zero (Newton )
Following this dictum physics state that foe equilibrium the charge on
the surface of a radiator does not move
linearlly there fore, there cannot be a linear force or vector to
oppose it. From this it is stated that there is no movement
in linear form else where which includes the center of the conductor/
radiator when the radfiator is one wavelength or multiple there of.
Now we have the case of a fractional wavelength radiator. In this case
one is aware that charges do move in a linear
direction as evidenced by "end effect". Therefore by following the
standard laws of physics there must be a
balancing force/vector in the opposite direction and the only place
that vector could be is in the center of the conductor
One should also be aware that a electrical curcuit for a fractional
wavelength is a series circuit and a parallelel circuit for a
fulle wavelength both of which are closed cuircuits when determining
current flow of a radiator so one can itemise the electrical circuit
in detail with respect to the components on the actual radiator to
ensure compatability.
Now according to my theory of radiation the forward current on a
radiator is opposed by closed circuit eddy current
which in combination provide a angular rotational force on any
residing particle which allows for directional levitation or
projection.
When the current of the radiator reaches the end of the radiator it
closes the circuit by entering the center of the conductor
( assuming the arrangement is not in a state of vacuum)under circular
surface current cuircuit where it is still in existance.
The internal current flow is solely resistive in nature comprising of
theseries resistance of the material used and not radiative.
Now David, if you can point to a description that differs to the above
and follows the laws of physics I would be happy to look it up and
study it , but in the final analysis one must be able to determine
the state of the conductor at it's center at all times.
David, my explanation is based on the world of physics as I know it.


Hi Art
Trying to build a picture here.
Let's say I have a 1/2 wave dipole, and I drive it such that one ampere
is flowing at the feedpoint. Let's agree to use amps RMS and volts RMS
at 14 MHz
for this example, just for clarity.
If I measure the current a short distance from the feedpoint, it's a bit
less than one amp. Correct so far?

If I tease the antenna conductor apart and measure the current flowing
on the
outside with one RF Ammeter, and the current flowing in the
center with a second ammeter, what are the two currents?

Thanks!
73
PN2222A

On Nov 1, 7:07*pm, "PN2222A" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote



When viewing the antenna from an equilibrium point of view which is a
staple requirement of all electrical laws
one must assume that all forces/vectors equal zero (Newton )
Following this dictum physics state that foe equilibrium the charge on
the surface of a radiator does not move
linearlly there fore, there cannot be a linear force or vector to
oppose it. From this it is stated that there is no movement
in linear form else where which includes the center of the conductor/
radiator when the radfiator is one wavelength or multiple there of.
Now we have the case of a fractional wavelength radiator. In this case
one is aware that charges do move in a linear
direction as evidenced by "end effect". Therefore by following the
standard laws of physics there must be a
balancing force/vector in the opposite direction *and the only place
that vector could be is in the center of the conductor
One should also be aware that a electrical curcuit for a fractional
wavelength is a series circuit and a parallelel circuit for a
fulle wavelength both of which are closed cuircuits when determining
current flow of a radiator so one can itemise the electrical circuit
in detail with respect to the components on the actual radiator to
ensure compatability.
Now according to my theory of radiation the forward current on a
radiator is opposed by closed circuit eddy current
which in combination provide a angular rotational force on any
residing particle which allows for directional levitation or
projection.
When the current of the radiator reaches the end of the radiator it
closes the circuit by entering the center of the conductor
( assuming the arrangement is not in a state of vacuum)under circular
surface current cuircuit where it is still in existance.
The internal current flow is solely resistive in nature comprising of
theseries resistance of the material used and not radiative.
Now David, if you can point to a description that differs to the above
and follows the laws of physics I would be happy to look it up and
study it , but in *the final analysis one must be able to determine
the state of the conductor at it's center at all times.
David, my explanation is based on the world of physics as I know it.

Hi Art
Trying to build a picture here.
Let's say I have a 1/2 wave dipole, and I drive it such that one ampere
is flowing at the feedpoint. *Let's agree to use amps RMS and volts RMS
at 14 MHz
for this example, just for clarity.
If I measure the current a short distance from the feedpoint, it's a bit
less than one amp. * Correct so far?

If I tease the antenna conductor apart and measure the current flowing
on the
outside with one RF Ammeter, and the current flowing in the
center with a second ammeter, what are the two currents?

Thanks!
73
PN2222A

Sorry. I have enough problems trying to explain my own theorem which
follows Newton,
Gauss and also Einsteins dream in identifying all four universal
forces which provide the key
to the explanation to radiation and discards the notion of traveling
waves in the atmosphere.
Until this group has the courage in disputing that the addition of
radiators and a time varying
current to a Gaussian arbitrary static field in equilibrium is
mathematically identical with Maxwell's laws
AND also accept the Grand Unification Theory which I have supplied the
proof of authenticity change will never be accepted regardless of
first
principles that they learned in their only period of learning where
they apparently were placed
in a position of understanding all the laws of the Universe and every
thing else. If any of those
that are educated enough to take up the challenge from first
principles then they are in danger of being mocked
by those who cannot accept change,Thus it is safer to abide by books
that are full of just conjecture with respect to radiation.
There is nobody in this newsgroup who is willing to take the challenge
and be subject to the ire of the many talking heads.
The comparison of my extended Gaussian law of statics to the laws of
Maxwell will never be attempted by a ham whether
on this newsgroup or else where. On top of thatm, the theorem will
never be attempted or accepted when applied to NEC or mininec programs
with optimizer regardles of the fact that computer programs are
founded on the laws of Maxwell which includes the four forces of the
Universe plus the foundation of equilibrium NONE of which are included
or accounted for in the design of Yagi's or other planar devices.
To be frank,, most of this group have asked for a definition of the
term equilibrium, this despite the fact that there is no law of
physics in this universe that does not expect the condition of
equilibrium as a a given for the validity of any law with respect to
our universe. This is in addition to all suppliers of technical
information to Maxwell to condense into a smaller number, all
specifically stated that the information given were valid ONLY under
the conditions of equilibrium
As far as your question goes, you cannot create energy so the energy
supplied is the same that returns to the source
neglecting losses in the closed system i.e Energy supplied to the
"system" cannot be overcome by the disturbances created by the initial
energy
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg
which has never been extended

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
. . .
Possibly yes. However, ending a sentence in a preposition is a
violation of proper grammar, up with which I will not put.

Johnny's dad wanted to read him a story from a book, but Johnny wasn't
interested. So his mean father sent him to his room without supper.
After supper, his father went to Johnny's room to try again. And Johnny
said,

"Why did you bring the book that before dinner I didn't want to be read
to out of up for after?"

That was the record of six prepositions at the end of a sentence
submitted by readers to "Charlie Rice's Punchbowl" in Parade Magazine
oh, I dunno, 45 years or so ago. I guess remembering stuff like that is
why I don't have room to remember where I parked the car or left my glasses.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
To be frank,, most of this group have asked for a definition of the
term equilibrium,

and which you have never supplied, despite your claim that it has to be
satified for everything.

this despite the fact that there is no law of
physics in this universe that does not expect the condition of
equilibrium as a a given for the validity of any law with respect to
our universe.

which laws specifically require equilibrium? any law that talks about
energy transfer, which is most of them, require non-equilibrium. energy can
not flow where everything is in equilibrium, by definition! oh, but wait,
you have not supplied that definition yet, so you must have a different
definition in which energy can flow despite equilibrium... lets hear it art,
that is worthy of a Nobel prize for sure!

This is in addition to all suppliers of technical
information to Maxwell to condense into a smaller number, all
specifically stated that the information given were valid ONLY under
the conditions of equilibrium

Give quotes. i want to see in the original writings where Gauss, Ampere,
Coulomb, Ohm, Lorentz, etc all require some kind of equilibrium. Come on
art, you claim to be above all of us who have studied such things for years,
and yet you can not define even your most basic condition that you keep
ranting about.

So your homework assignment is to in one equation do this: Define
Equilibrium.

On Nov 2, 7:04*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

To be frank,, most of this group have asked for a definition of the
term equilibrium,

and which you have never supplied, despite your claim that it has to be
satified for everything.

this despite the fact that there is no law of
physics in this universe * that does not expect the condition of
equilibrium as a a given for the validity of any law with respect to
our universe.

which laws specifically require equilibrium? *any law that talks about
energy transfer, which is most of them, require non-equilibrium. *energy can
not flow where everything is in equilibrium, by definition! *oh, but wait,
you have not supplied that definition yet, so you must have a different
definition in which energy can flow despite equilibrium... lets hear it art,
that is worthy of a Nobel prize for sure!

This is in addition to all suppliers of technical
information to Maxwell to condense into a smaller number, all
specifically stated that the information given were valid ONLY under
the conditions of equilibrium

Give quotes. *i want to see in the original writings where Gauss, Ampere,
Coulomb, Ohm, Lorentz, etc all require some kind of equilibrium. *Come on
art, you claim to be above all of us who have studied such things for years,
and yet you can not define even your most basic condition that you keep
ranting about.

So your homework assignment is to in one equation do this: *Define
Equilibrium.

David,
I am so glad that you keep writing. No I can't spend a lot of time
responding
because of the postings content. What I do find important is that
everybody
exercise to right of free speech as it allows all to determine who
and what you really are
Most people would look at a dictionary for themselves to determine
what the word
equilibrium actually means as well as the recordings of history where
all the masters of the past
has made a stipulation about the conditi9on of equilibrium as a staple
of the validity of the laws that they espoused.
You should also know that Einstein was convinced that radiation held
the clues as to the nature of the four forces of the universe
He never stumbled on the answer but he never ditched the idea of
equilibrium as a staple
for the laws of relativity. Nor have other discarded same in string
theory or the burgeoning science of particles
in our universe. I am betting that there are some knoweledgable people
out there that do read your postings and place you in a certain
category.
I would also point out that those who try to distort the ideas of
reflection are the owners of the largest threads on this newsgroup
where there are many that exceed a thousand posting where many are
unable to turn the espoused ideas of reflections into a closed circuit
of understanding since it involves so many positions that are
unsustainable to those familiar with the state of the art.
All one has to do to destroy my theory and the new clues that emanate
is to add radiators and a time varying current to that enclosed within
a arbitrary border is in a state of equilibrium as per Gauss to
determine the difference in the math to that espoused by Maxwell to
detroy my position. All one has to do is to use any computor program
on antennas with an optimizer, insert any dimensions that do not guide
the computer in the direction of a planar design ie. all dimensions
being non repeatable and then determine why the programs based on the
laws of Maxwell consistently provide antennas that are in a state of
equilibrium. No ham on this group have proved false my assertions with
respect to radiation since their learning stopped at the point of
leaving university where they still hold on to the books of
yesteryear. On top of all this there is no evidence that there is any
advantage in having rafiators in a straight line, or that size is a
factor for any antenna WHERE there is accountability for ALLl the four
forces that aid in the production of radiation.
So David keep writing as I have given you lots of data to refute so
that posters can understand who and what you are .
Great day for antennas so get off the net and enjoy your self
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
So David keep writing as I have given you lots of data to refute so
that posters can understand who and what you are .

you have given no 'data', you have done lots of hand waving and
pontificating, but you have presented no actual data or equations that could
be refuted. i am just in here keeping you talking because i enjoy the
occasional laugh when you put together a particularly good piece of
bafflegab.

Great day for antennas so get off the net and enjoy your self

I am taking the day off from antenna work, i have a guest operator using my
station for ss cw and i am just working on an update of my latest book...
practical stuff for the practical ham, you will have no place in it nor need
for it.

On Nov 2, 12:12*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

So David keep writing as I have given you lots of data to refute so
that posters can understand who and what you are *.

you have given no 'data', you have done lots of hand waving and
pontificating, but you have presented no actual data or equations that could
be refuted. *i am just in here keeping you talking because i enjoy the
occasional laugh when you put together a particularly good piece of
bafflegab.

Great day for antennas so get off the net and enjoy your self

I am taking the day off from antenna work, i have a guest operator using my
station for ss cw and i am just working on an update of my latest book...
practical stuff for the practical ham, you will have no place in it nor need
for it.

The book idea sounds interesting. there seems to be a lot more
printing
outside theo academic world these days to counteract their iron hold
on science discussions.
The best independent book that I own is
The secret of gravity and other mysteries of the Universe by Weldon
Vlasak which I recommend to anybody
in the ham radio world. Let me know when your book gets on the Oprah
list of the book of the month
so I can see you on TV
At the moment I am putting a different rotatable antenna for top band
on my tower while the weather is still good
tho there are a lot of hitches that get in the way when at the top !.
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Best regards
Art

Of course, I am always open to "new proof" (heck, even old proof will do!)

However, in a capacitor, I do believe that power and/or current does
travel the surface of the plate(s.) To make a jump from this
acceptance, to one accepting the same occurs at rf, where a signal
actually leaves the antenna and enters/"rides"/travels/propagates the
ether, is easily made, at least by me.

Since, obviously, the signal MUST leave the surface, why not just travel
it (shortest distance between two points--and all that) to begin with?

I do believe it does travel the surface, if at all possible; however,
given a very thin radiator and/or a very large PA, it would not surprise
me if you can't force the current/power/VA to another route ...

Regards,
JS

On Nov 2, 1:20*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

Best regards
Art

Of course, I am always open to "new proof" (heck, even old proof will do!)

However, in a capacitor, I do believe that power and/or current does
travel the surface of the plate(s.) *
But of course John it will travel along the plate
that is natures way of seeking the point of least resistance
to cross. Remember that the plate of a capacitor represents an
inductor which in combination with a capacitor has the same
constituents as a
tank circuit except that it is not being subject to a time varying
field.
I would like to say that I was in error stating that the when
programers made the computor program
on antennas on the premise of a contunuous sine wave they are quite
correct when viwing it from yhe stand point of a
tank circuit.





To make a jump from this
acceptance, to one accepting the same occurs at rf, where a signal
actually leaves the antenna and enters/"rides"/travels/propagates the
ether, is easily made, at least by me.
I think the case is slightly different, it needs a continued varied
current to
achieve a stable eddy current which gives the ability for levitated
charge movement
and in the capacitor case the point of least resistance is pre
established after the first varient in current
and it is the current movement inconjunction with the eddy current
that provides the essential spin needed
for inline projection




Since, obviously, the signal MUST leave the surface, why not just travel
it (shortest distance between two points--and all that) to begin with?

Exactly . After the first pulse of current flow the point of least
resistance
is attained so yes the charge will travel at that specific point.
When a capacitor breaks down you cannot see the path taken by the
current
on the initiating plate but you can see a point trace where the charge
impinges
on the reeiving plate as opposed to the whole area of the plate.
Remember convention if correct states that a capacitor does not
radiate

I do believe it does travel the surface, if at all possible; *however,
given a very thin radiator and/or a very large PA, it would not surprise
me if you can't force the current/power/VA to another route ...

I don't see how that could happen except when a charge is released it
produces a
lesser resistance route by ironizing of the medium travelled either in
the initial case
or of a resultant discharge travelling thu ozone.


Regards,
JS
Interesting
Regards
Art

Art, will you please tell us who has distorted the idea of reflection?

Walt, W2DU