Art is obviously a well educated person having the ability to express
himself in plain English better than most.

Unfortunately the technical content of his writings are pure gibberish,
giving an intelligent reader the impression he is having his leg pulled -
or being trolled. I cannot make any sense out of what he says and his
reasoning. I gave up trying a long time ago.

As he so frequently admits, he is unable to understand what he himself is
talking about.

(Incidentally, Richard, you have Art's characteristics reversed. But the end
result is the same - too often I can't understand what it is you are
waffling about.)

Art, may I suggest that before you write you think in QUANTITATIVE terms
about what you want to say. Put some numbers and physical shape into it.
Draw pictures. Solve your own problems. Go back to Ohm's Law and square 1.
Otherwise you will continue to think in emotional terms without being able
even to visualise, to picture, the subject matter.

Emotions and feelings are not a part of engineering except on pay-day. But
the sheer beauty of deriving equations followed by logical calculation,
especially when it gives the right answers, is something which no human
should be deprived of.

As for Richard, old-man, there's no hope for you. ;o)
----
Reg

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:43:58 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

we are to consider:
Emotions and feelings are not a part of engineering except on pay-day.
contradicted within one sentence by:
As for Richard, old-man, there's no hope for you. ;o)

At last reckoning, for you blokes on the dole, this isn't pay-day.
You two are ancient enough to have a grudge against Richard III.

Well, that was fun as long as no one cares to talk about serious
radiation questions. ;-)

Or even calibrated mud.... (talk about a lack of QUANTITATIVE terms)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jimmy I know what the cuurent curve shows on a radiating element and I
suspect that you do also.
Now show me an equivalent current curve for a circle so I can see the
differences in area under the current curve.
Are they different or are they the same?. If you know where such a
comparison is shown and they are different
you are then positioned to inform me why.
By the same token if they are the same which is how most people see it then
I will be better able to
resolve my conundrum for myself.
Art
"Jimmie" wrote in message
r.com...

" 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
snipNot knowing how you came to your conclusion no one can tell you why you
are
wrong.. My uncle used to have a paint and body shop with a 57 Chevy up on
a
pole in front of his shop. While the car would make an awful antenna it
would be futile to try to explain why. In another way of saying it would
be
like explaining to a student how he missed a math problem when all he
shows
is an answer. The best the instructor can do is tell him he is right or
wrong. In your case the instructor would not even be sure which problem he
had done.

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.

" 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.
deletia..........
Thanks in advance
Art


Art
There is radiation due to the acceleration of bending a current, it's called
synchrotron radiation.
Synchrotron radiation and amateur radio have little or nothing to do with
one another.
Take elementary school science and report back.
73
H.

"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

Steve I thank you for your response and I am beginning to see and have
confidence in what I am saying alss I believe I over explained things which
really created problems.
Energy alonf any member travels at the speed of light wether the member or
element is straight or converluted.
In a straight member the current under goes a phase change at all times thus
from one direction the current varies according to I Cos Phi i.e.
accellerating in value and decellerating in value.
When the same electric current follows a coiled load there is no phase
change and the curreny does diminish slightly
due to resistance loss and the effect of inter coil and capacitance w2hich
vastly affects the impedance as the
current moves around the coil..
because there is no phase change and if we are able to remove the rising
inductance and capacitance created by the close proximety of coils we can
then attain a resistive value of impedance or at least progress to that end.
Thus when you travel around a single coil you are not affected by the
inductance and capacitance in a wound coil so the question is how to achieve
this without a closed loop.
What I did before was to use a small number of open coils made from 1/2
corregated copper transmission line and placed them at various heights as
required by my programing where it provided a very large bandwidth.
So what you may ask, what were your measurements!
So I decided to use upto 20 loops attached to a 40 foot
fibreglass tubing tower. This required a program containg
over 400 segments plus 20 variable dimensions to cover the various distance
between loops and where I predecided on the loop diameter. So you can see
that for this many loops in series makes for a very long program
and with the extra checking I must do so that prior trends
are duplicated. All of this isw intended to produce a vertical for a band
below 20 metres where its actual height and signal strength will be proof of
the pudding.
Thanks again for staying with me and for your advice.
I will definitely keep you informed if the results mirror my previous tests.
I have the tower and I have made the loops and just need one more overcheck
on yhis very long program. Somewhere in between I will work on this laptop
so it will provide readable script and also transfer
my computor program.
Very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG
Bloomington ILL
"Steve Nosko" wrote in message
...
[... 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

Art
Try bourbon, it lets you keep spelling longer.
73
H.

Hi, I do not smoke ,drink or swear but it boggles my mind that this 3 GIG
laptop has script the size of a pinhead. I must find time to set this thing
up as I want it
Art
"H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote in message
...
Art
Try bourbon, it lets you keep spelling longer.
73
H.