[Peter]

I'm preparing an article for a local radio club magazine about the nature of
radio and electromagnetic radiation in general. While this is a non
mathematical and general descriptive treatment of the subject it is a
challenge to make it clear and consistent.
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/radio.htm

Thank you for your time.

Regards Peter VK6YSF

[Cecil Moore]

On Apr 30, 4:14*am, "Peter" wrote:
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.

The two-dimensional Fig. 2-2 graph is confusing in that it could be
inferred that the E and H fields are 90 degrees out of phase in time
and are never zero at the same time. The E and H fields are in phase
in time as demonstrated by Fig. 2-4.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 05:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Cecil Moore
wrote:

On Apr 30, 4:14*am, "Peter" wrote:
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.

The two-dimensional Fig. 2-2 graph is confusing in that it could be
inferred that the E and H fields are 90 degrees out of phase in time
and are never zero at the same time. The E and H fields are in phase
in time as demonstrated by Fig. 2-4.
Hmmm. I'm no expert, but I thought they were 90 degrees out of phase.
It's the rapidly changing H field that creates the E field and vica
versa. If you look closely, Fig 2-4 also shows them 90 degrees out of
phase.

To the OP, heat is not electromagnetic radiation. Light and x-rays
are. You can heat something by pointing em radiation at it and
something that is hot gives off infra-red em radiation, but heat
itself is not em radiation.

Pat

[Art Unwin]

On Apr 30, 9:00*am, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 05:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Cecil Moore

wrote:
On Apr 30, 4:14*am, "Peter" wrote:
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.

The two-dimensional Fig. 2-2 graph is confusing in that it could be
inferred that the E and H fields are 90 degrees out of phase in time
and are never zero at the same time. The E and H fields are in phase
in time as demonstrated by Fig. 2-4.

Hmmm. *I'm no expert, but I thought they were 90 degrees out of phase.
It's the rapidly changing H field that creates the E field and vica
versa. *If you look closely, Fig 2-4 also shows them 90 degrees out of
phase.

To the OP, heat is not electromagnetic radiation. *Light and x-rays
are. *You can heat something by pointing em radiation at it and
something that is hot gives off infra-red em radiation, but heat
itself is not em radiation. *

Pat

It is accepted that radiation is "an acceleration that generates or
transfers a charge ". This is an empty statement if one cannot explain
the mechanics of the operation.Certainly you have to determine what
you have in hand to provide this action, and at the present time there
is no agreement whether it is a wave flow of a constituent, what ever
that may be, or a particle.
Therefore one has to determine exactly what we are going to accelerate
and how we are going to avoid the effects of gravity since radiation
does not follow the action of a descending lob.
This as yet has not been determined, so we cannot begin to
understand! For me I see a wave as being an adjective and a particle
as a noun.
But a word of warning,physicists do not follow the same rules of the
general public, so if you have a day or two to spare get a physicist
to explain exactly what a 'wave' is and how does it fit with the
required straight line accelerating trajectory that opposes gravity!
You just cannot explain "radio" until you determine what you are
accelerating and how.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art

[tom]

It is accepted that radiation is "an acceleration that generates or
transfers a charge ". This is an empty statement if one cannot explain
the mechanics of the operation.Certainly you have to determine what
you have in hand to provide this action, and at the present time there
is no agreement whether it is a wave flow of a constituent, what ever
that may be, or a particle.
Therefore one has to determine exactly what we are going to accelerate
and how we are going to avoid the effects of gravity since radiation
does not follow the action of a descending lob.
This as yet has not been determined, so we cannot begin to
understand! For me I see a wave as being an adjective and a particle
as a noun.
But a word of warning,physicists do not follow the same rules of the
general public, so if you have a day or two to spare get a physicist
to explain exactly what a 'wave' is and how does it fit with the
required straight line accelerating trajectory that opposes gravity!
You just cannot explain "radio" until you determine what you are
accelerating and how.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art


You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

[Art Unwin]

On Apr 30, 9:22*pm, tom wrote:
It is accepted that radiation is "an acceleration that generates or
transfers a charge ". This is an empty statement if one cannot explain
the mechanics of the operation.Certainly you have to determine what
you have in hand to provide this action, and at the present time there
is no agreement whether it is a wave flow of a constituent, what ever
that may be, or a particle.
Therefore one has to determine exactly what we are going to accelerate
and how we are going to avoid the effects of gravity since radiation
does not follow the action of a descending lob.
* * *This as yet has not been determined, so we cannot begin to
understand! For me I see a wave as being an adjective and a particle
as a noun.
But a word of warning,physicists do not follow the same rules of the
general public, so if you have a day or two to spare get a physicist
to explain exactly what a 'wave' is and how does it fit with the
required straight line accelerating trajectory that opposes gravity!
You just cannot explain "radio" until you determine what you are
accelerating and how.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art

You are really good, Art. *How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. *Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. *How do you continue to
make almost no sense? *That's really tough. *I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
In other words I can act on a full picture made of jigsaw parts but
not a partial picture. Therefore one must deal with fully melded and
interacting parts that are consistant to reality. Thus I adhere to
classical physics and factual observances or laws without straying
from the path I have chosen from interconnecting parts.
Quantum theory is based on probabilities and associated math. Any body
who has been to the race track knows that this form of thinking has
its fallacies thus probabilities has moved towards string theory. I
stick to classical physics as they have a history of success with the
laws that they have established but unfortunately physicists have
corrupted the language of observances. For instance we had a
discussion on Leptons, colour etc. Physicists recognise that colour as
the rest of the world knows it as a means of separation of its
observed actions instead of labelling it lepton1 or lepton 2.Same goes
for hadrons, they actually could be a single type particle but
physicists label them by the action that they exhibit on observance.
Why do you think that the idea of a mad scientist hangs on to this
day. They did similar things with respect to waves which in their
world has nothing to do with water, tides e.t.c.
So for me there is merit in sticking to points raised by classical
physics since they are tried and true
under examination and have not exploded by categerizing particles by a
particular observation.
After all, both a dog and a cat have a tail they can wag but the real
world can have the same observation of different entitiesand vica
versa.
What I desire the most is for somebody to challenge my statements
based on documented observations and laws bearing in mind that the
written word comes after factual examination and not before.As yet
nobody has pointed out a fallacy that is in conflict with presently
known laws, and I mean nobody. If there is a conflict then I will
discard all. But remember, I do not make computer programs on
radiators but they all confirm the presence of particles and
equilibrium and I have had no way of manipulating that to conform to
my thinking. They show that maximum radiation is obtained when
material resistance drops to zero and radiation rises to a maximum via
current flow outside the member to elevate particles at rest on the
surface. I couldn't possibly string some thing like that as a joke or
by not taking my medicine.

[Roy Lewallen]

wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 05:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Cecil Moore
wrote:

On Apr 30, 4:14 am, "Peter" wrote:
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.
The two-dimensional Fig. 2-2 graph is confusing in that it could be
inferred that the E and H fields are 90 degrees out of phase in time
and are never zero at the same time. The E and H fields are in phase
in time as demonstrated by Fig. 2-4.
Hmmm. I'm no expert, but I thought they were 90 degrees out of phase.
It's the rapidly changing H field that creates the E field and vica
versa. If you look closely, Fig 2-4 also shows them 90 degrees out of
phase.
. . .

The time phase angle between E and H is determined by the medium the
wave is propagating through. The (complex) ratio of E to H is called the
intrinsic impedance of the medium, and for lossless media, it's always a
purely real number (about 377 ohms for air or free space), meaning that
E and H are in phase. Only when propagating through a lossy medium are E
and H not in time phase, and then the maximum phase difference is always
less than 45 degrees.

In any version of EZNEC including the demo, you can see the value of the
intrinsic impedance of nearly any medium. Select a real ground type,
click Ground Descrip in the main window, and enter the conductivity and
dielectric constant of the medium. (To simulate free space, enter a very
small number for ground conductivity, and 1 for the dielectric
constant.) Then open the Utilities menu and select Ground Info. Among
other things, it shows the intrinsic impedance of the ground medium in
polar form. The angle of the impedance is the time phase angle between E
and H of a wave propagating in the medium.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

[Owen Duffy]

Roy Lewallen wrote in
:

The time phase angle between E and H is determined by the medium the
wave is propagating through. The (complex) ratio of E to H is called
the intrinsic impedance of the medium, and for lossless media, it's
always a purely real number (about 377 ohms for air or free space),
meaning that E and H are in phase. Only when propagating through a
lossy medium are E and H not in time phase, and then the maximum phase
difference is always less than 45 degrees.

If I understand this correctly, a field arrangement with E and H in time
and space quadrature is not propagating energy, but rather energy
exchange.

In very close to an antenna, the time phase relationship of E and H may
be close to quadrature due to the inductive or reactive field close to
the conductors, but that changes eventually to 'in-phase' in the far
radiation field in free space (as the induction field components decay
more quickly with distance than the radiation field components).

If that is the case, the complex value of E/H varies from very close to
the far field. I have seen plots of E/H vs distance that treated E/H as a
real number, but I suspect that it is more complex when all of the
components of E and H are included.

Thoughts?

Owen

[Art Unwin]

On Apr 30, 5:05*pm, Owen Duffy wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote om:

The time phase angle between E and H is determined by the medium the
wave is propagating through. The (complex) ratio of E to H is called
the intrinsic impedance of the medium, and for lossless media, it's
always a purely real number (about 377 ohms for air or free space),
meaning that E and H are in phase. Only when propagating through a
lossy medium are E and H not in time phase, and then the maximum phase
difference is always less than 45 degrees.

If I understand this correctly, a field arrangement with E and H in time
and space quadrature is not propagating energy, but rather energy
exchange.

In very close to an antenna, the time phase relationship of E and H may
be close to quadrature due to the inductive or reactive field close to
the conductors, but that changes eventually to 'in-phase' in the far
radiation field in free space (as the induction field components decay
more quickly with distance than the radiation field components).

If that is the case, the complex value of E/H varies from very close to
the far field. I have seen plots of E/H vs distance that treated E/H as a
real number, but I suspect that it is more complex when all of the
components of E and H are included.

Thoughts?

Owen

Owen
By observation the E and H fields can be seen as a tank circuit where
all vectors are accounted for so that
one follows the notion that energy cannot be created or destroyed plus
the other laws of Newton.
When we stray from that scenario we get into new theories or
imaginations The moment we stray from boundary laws one is coersed
into thinking like somebody of a lesser nature than past masters who
determine phenomina from observation that is matched by known
principles. How on earth can we relate to near fields and far fields
if we haven't decided what the media concists of. My approach was to
stick with the laws of Maxwell which dictates static and dynamic
fields where all forces are accounted for, which shows that gravity
can only be negated by the use of Newton's laws. Thus my foundations
were not built on a layer of sand but what is accepted via Maxwell's
laws. In other words, the laws of Maxwell points to the presence of
particles when dealing with fields and displacements by virtue of the
units used. There are lots of things that exhibit properties of other
materials and thus by observation can be compared to other things in
action, but they should never be considered as one and the same unless
they are matched in their entirety. Particles and waves
have lurched beyond science by considering them to be one and the same
purely by action and not by substance.
If one is going to discuss energy exchange as with inductance and
capacitance to determine relative phase angles , fields etc one cannot
stray from the tank circuit
observations.
Regards
Art

[Roy Lewallen]

Owen Duffy wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in
:

The time phase angle between E and H is determined by the medium the
wave is propagating through. The (complex) ratio of E to H is called
the intrinsic impedance of the medium, and for lossless media, it's
always a purely real number (about 377 ohms for air or free space),
meaning that E and H are in phase. Only when propagating through a
lossy medium are E and H not in time phase, and then the maximum phase
difference is always less than 45 degrees.

If I understand this correctly, a field arrangement with E and H in time
and space quadrature is not propagating energy, but rather energy
exchange.

I believe that's correct, but there's no medium in which that would take
place -- with a plane wave at least.

In very close to an antenna, the time phase relationship of E and H may
be close to quadrature due to the inductive or reactive field close to
the conductors, but that changes eventually to 'in-phase' in the far
radiation field in free space (as the induction field components decay
more quickly with distance than the radiation field components).

If that is the case, the complex value of E/H varies from very close to
the far field. I have seen plots of E/H vs distance that treated E/H as a
real number, but I suspect that it is more complex when all of the
components of E and H are included.

Thoughts?

Yes, E/H varies a great deal in both magnitude and phase in the near
field. The intrinsic Z describes only the E/H ratio of a plane wave
propagating in the far field. This can be easily investigated with NEC,
EZNEC, or any modeling program that provides near field results.

Incidentally, the physical orientation of E and H, and I believe their
time phase, can be quite different when bounded by conductors as in a
waveguide.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL