Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
Most of you wrote that your antennas work below the voltage necessary to
start the electron emission. But in reality the emission take place at all voltages. " Attempts to understand autoelectronic emission included plotting experimental current-voltage (i - V) data in different ways, to look for a straight-line relationship. Current increased with voltage more rapidly than linearly, but plots of type (log(i) vs. V) were not straight" "A breakthrough came when Lauritsen[13] (and Oppenheimer independently[14]) found that plots of type (log(i) vs. 1/V) yielded good straight lines. This result, published by Millikan and Lauritsen[13] in early 1928, was known to Fowler and Nordheim. Oppenheimer had predicted[14] that the field-induced tunneling of electrons from atoms (the effect now called field ionization) would have this i(V) dependence, had found this dependence in the published experimental field emission results of Millikan and Eyring,[10] and proposed that CFE was due to field-induced tunneling of electrons from atomic-like orbitals in surface metal atoms. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_electron_emission Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Best Regards, S* |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Of course not. Not only is this effect too small to be measured at voltages common on a transmitter antenna, the voltage is also AC so these effects will cancel out along the cycle of the AC wave. The net result will be zero. There can only be a net current when there is a (large) DC voltage on the charged body, which is not the case on a transmitter antenna. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:24:03 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Great theory. If antennas emitted electrons, and electrons have mass, we could then build a rotating antenna powered by the electron belching reaction mass. Put the antenna on a hub, and watch the electron emissions turn the antenna as they fly off the antenna at ummm... the speed of light. A few hundred watts of power should be more than enough to move the antenna around. Yeah, great physics you have there. Hint: How fast do electrons travel in a wire? No, it's not the speed of light. It's called electron drift velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity http://www.jensign.com/JavaScience/www/cuwire/cuwire.html For the above example, it takes about 12 hours for an electron to travel 1 meter in a copper wire. Not exactly at RF speeds. Keep trying. Eventually, you'll get something correct. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci ... On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:24:03 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Great theory. If antennas emitted electrons, and electrons have mass, we could then build a rotating antenna powered by the electron belching reaction mass. Put the antenna on a hub, and watch the electron emissions turn the antenna as they fly off the antenna at ummm... the speed of light. A few hundred watts of power should be more than enough to move the antenna around. Yeah, great physics you have there. Hint: How fast do electrons travel in a wire? No, it's not the speed of light. It's called electron drift velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity http://www.jensign.com/JavaScience/www/cuwire/cuwire.html For the above example, it takes about 12 hours for an electron to travel 1 meter in a copper wire. Not exactly at RF speeds. The air molecules travel with the speed of the wind. But they oscillate if there is the sound source. The speed of sound and the speed the wind are the different things. The same is with the electron waves speed and the electron beam (drift) speed. Keep trying. Eventually, you'll get something correct. S* |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci ... On 21/04/2012 08:24, Szczepan Bialek wrote: Most of you wrote that your antennas work below the voltage necessary to start the electron emission. But in reality the emission take place at all voltages. When that happens at zero or low voltages the electrons are call Beta radiation!! Yes. When they escape at low voltages we call it "discharging". Charge your antenna and measure the dicharging time. " Attempts to understand autoelectronic emission included plotting experimental current-voltage (i - V) data in different ways, to look for a straight-line relationship. Current increased with voltage more rapidly than linearly, but plots of type (log(i) vs. V) were not straight" "A breakthrough came when Lauritsen[13] (and Oppenheimer independently[14]) found that plots of type (log(i) vs. 1/V) yielded good straight lines. This result, published by Millikan and Lauritsen[13] in early 1928, was known to Fowler and Nordheim. Oppenheimer had predicted[14] that the field-induced tunneling of electrons from atoms (the effect now called field ionization) would have this i(V) dependence, had found this dependence in the published experimental field emission results of Millikan and Eyring,[10] and proposed that CFE was due to field-induced tunneling of electrons from atomic-like orbitals in surface metal atoms. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_electron_emission Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Best Regards, S* Nothing in what you quoted says that electrons are produced at "all voltages". A straight line does not infer that the line stars from zero!! There is a threshold voltage below which no emissions take place, Your fancy is great. Congratulation. this voltage is the intercept on the voltage axis for the straight line thaled about. So the "dicharging" do not exsists? S* |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Of course not. Not only is this effect too small to be measured at voltages common on a transmitter antenna, the voltage is also AC so these effects will cancel out along the cycle of the AC wave. The net result will be zero. No. "Once liberated, electrons are strongly repelled by the high electric field near the electrode during negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output " There can only be a net current when there is a (large) DC voltage on the charged body, which is not the case on a transmitter antenna. In a transmitter antenna is the "oscillatory flow of electrons" with the net current from the earth into air. S* |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Most of you wrote that your antennas work below the voltage necessary to start the electron emission. But in reality the emission take place at all voltages. Wrong. " Attempts to understand autoelectronic emission included plotting experimental current-voltage (i - V) data in different ways, to look for a straight-line relationship. Current increased with voltage more rapidly than linearly, but plots of type (log(i) vs. V) were not straight" "A breakthrough came when Lauritsen[13] (and Oppenheimer independently[14]) found that plots of type (log(i) vs. 1/V) yielded good straight lines. This result, published by Millikan and Lauritsen[13] in early 1928, was known to Fowler and Nordheim. Oppenheimer had predicted[14] that the field-induced tunneling of electrons from atoms (the effect now called field ionization) would have this i(V) dependence, had found this dependence in the published experimental field emission results of Millikan and Eyring,[10] and proposed that CFE was due to field-induced tunneling of electrons from atomic-like orbitals in surface metal atoms. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_electron_emission I see you didn't bother to include the part about it being dependant on the work function, which means there is a minimum energy required. Or more likely you just don't understand this anymore than you understand anything else. Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Wrong. Best Regards, You are an ignorant, babbling, idiot. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
When that happens at zero or low voltages the electrons are call Beta radiation!! Yes. Which is radioactive decay and has nothing to do with ANYTHING you have been babbling about. When they escape at low voltages we call it "discharging". Charge your antenna and measure the dicharging time. That would be quite impossible. snip babble Nothing in what you quoted says that electrons are produced at "all voltages". A straight line does not infer that the line stars from zero!! There is a threshold voltage below which no emissions take place, Your fancy is great. Congratulation. He is correct and the minimum energy is determined by the work function, yet another concept that totally escapes your understanding. this voltage is the intercept on the voltage axis for the straight line thaled about. So the "dicharging" do not exsists? Not in any way that you think happens because you are an ignorant idiot. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The air molecules travel with the speed of the wind. But they oscillate if there is the sound source. The speed of sound and the speed the wind are the different things. The same is with the electron waves speed and the electron beam (drift) speed. Nope, this is babbling nonsense and disproven long ago. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:51:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: "Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci .. . On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:24:03 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Great theory. If antennas emitted electrons, and electrons have mass, we could then build a rotating antenna powered by the electron belching reaction mass. Put the antenna on a hub, and watch the electron emissions turn the antenna as they fly off the antenna at ummm... the speed of light. A few hundred watts of power should be more than enough to move the antenna around. Yeah, great physics you have there. Hint: How fast do electrons travel in a wire? No, it's not the speed of light. It's called electron drift velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity http://www.jensign.com/JavaScience/www/cuwire/cuwire.html For the above example, it takes about 12 hours for an electron to travel 1 meter in a copper wire. Not exactly at RF speeds. The air molecules travel with the speed of the wind. But they oscillate if there is the sound source. The speed of sound and the speed the wind are the different things. Please let me know how far you can communicate using air molecules. There is a momentum transfer when moving air, but it dissipates rather quickly. Comparing electron dynamics with pneumatics just doesn't work.[1] The same is with the electron waves speed and the electron beam (drift) speed. Same as what? There is no such thing as an electron wave. There are electron beams, and radio waves, with very little overlap. If think that electrons fly off the ends of an antenna, there should be a way to directly detect those electrons. For example, a CRT has a phosphor screen that lights up when hit by electrons from the electron gun. If your mythical electrons are really there, you should also be able to place a phosphor screen near a transmitting antenna, and have it light up. Also, if your electrons are leaving the antenna, and flying off into the ether, there should be a rather large positive charge left on the antenna. If you then claim that the transmitter is replacing the electrons as fast as they are radiated, then the positive charge should reside in the transmitter. If you then claim that the local electric utility is supplying electrons to the transmitter, then the utility generating station must have a huge positive charge. Keep trying. Eventually, you'll get something correct. S* You're not trying hard enough. Open book, insert face, absorb everything, and verify what you've learned using real world examples and numerical calculations. If your theory of the moment can't be reduced to real (i.e. non-quantum) physics, with real calculations, and real experimental verification, it's probably wrong. [1] Maybe this will help. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough. Find a billiard table and line up about 10 balls in a line and as close together as possible. Use another ball to hit one end of the line, and time how long it takes between the first impact, and when the ball at the end starts to move. Now, cover the same distance with just the cue ball, and without the line of billiard balls. Note how it take MUCH longer for just the cue ball to travel the same distance. The line of billiard balls represents the atoms in a conductor. You'll get electron transport at almost the speed of light in such a situation. The cue ball alone represents the electron drift in the same conductor. If the cue ball could be made to travel at the same speed as it did through the line of billard balls, the felt on the billiard table would probably show a deep burn mark. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Carbon Emission Regulations to be Used as Censorship Tool | Shortwave |