"TokaMundo" wrote in message
...

Wrong again. You seem to think that the current is uniform
down to the "skin depth," and THEN it somehow starts to
fall off.

No. What the figure tells one is where the current is near zero,

Not at all. You're apparently using a very interesting, albeit
incorrect, definition of "skin depth." As has already been pointed
out numerous times, the "skin depth" figure that results from the
calculations you've been using is where the current density is
down to about 37% of its "surface" value (not 37% of the conductance
or loss or any other nonsensical notion that you seemed to think
in a previous post). There is clearly still current farther from
the surface than the "skin depth," and it is also clear that the
density above that value is non-uniform. This IS important,
and again I would suggest you check the values through an
actual loss calculation to see just how big the effect can be.


As John already pointed out, with seemingly unwarranted
patience,

Try being less stupid. THAT is what is unwarranted here. Unless,
of course, it just comes naturally for you.

That comment is particularly ironic, along with:

More stupidity. That was merely one location that I pointed out.
It explains it quite well, however, and much better than your
insulting ass does.

given the following:

You might get along with folks, if you stop with the bull****
insults. Sorry if YOU don't see your remarks that way, but I know
better. Both about the remarks, and the topic.

Talk about the pot complaining about the complexion of the
kettle...

Further nonsense:

and actually
figure out what the EFFECTS would be (in terms of resistive
loss, heating, whatever) of the skin depth at 60 Hz in a conductor
otherwise seemingly-properly-sized for the 800A service that
John mentioned as an example.

Pure aluminum or pure copper runs will see no difference.

Translation: you didn't bother to run the numbers, or you wouldn't
be saying something so obviously incorrect. Next time, show your
work.

Bob M.