"Richard Harrison" bravely wrote to "All" (15 Dec 05 17:18:25)
--- on the heady topic of " Antenna reception theory"

RH From: (Richard Harrison)
RH Xref: core-easynews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:221371

RH Roy Lewallen , W7EL wrote:
RH "Do you have a reference which defines field strength in terms of
RH voltage induced in a wire?"

RH Here is a reference from a professional source. B. Whitfield Griffith,
RH Jr. was Director of Advanced Development at General Dynamics
RH Corporation at Garland, Texas when his book, "Radio-Electronicc
RH Transmission Fundamentals" was published by Mc Graw-Hill in 1972. On
RH page 322, Griffith writes:
RH "The strength of an electromagnetic wave ; this is expressed in
RH volts per meter, or millivolts or microvolts per meter, as the
RH conditions may indicate.

So far so good, however things go awry from here on...


RH This value may be understood as being the
RH numbeer of volts which would be induced in a piece of wire one meter
RH long placed in the field parallel to the electric lines of force; the
RH induction of voltage would result from the movement of the magnetic
RH flux across the wire.

RH Griffith agrees with Terman.

He clearly contradicts himself in my opinion. He says it "is generally
*measured* in terms of the intensity of the electric field" then goes
on to talk about induction by magnetic flux. Further, he is not saying
that "it is" but that it "*may* be understood as". He is making an
example of one way to proceed. He is not saying they are the same
thing, only similar. There is a difference not a matter of syntax.

This reminds me of a contradiction I find in Einstein's equivalence
principle. He states accelerating at 1G is the same as being pulled by
the Earth's gravity at 1G. In my opinion, they are similar but they
are not quite the same thing simply because in the former there is
motion and for the latter there is not.

A*s*i*m*o*v