On 11 Nov, 12:30, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 11 Nov, 08:58, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message

...

In a resonant circuit containing R, L, and C, there most definitely
is a
time constant. Related to Q, it describes the time taken for the
circuit
to respond to a transient. The higher the Q, the longer the time
constant, and the longer it takes the circuit to come to equilibrium
after a step or sinusoid is applied, and to decay after it's removed.
Failure to understand this has resulted in some very poorly designed
audio filters for CW, among other things.

But Roy, I must first clear up that we are talking about apples and
oranges. I was referencing a sinusoidal source of a frequency that is
resonant to the circuit. You are talking about a transient can be
treated
as the sum of sinusoids which will not be resonant at the same
curcuit. I
was also referring to the antenna as a L-C-R circuit that does have
time
constants along its lengths (but I was asking 'where' along the
length)
but as a whole system the time contant of the antenna, when fed by a
signal at resonant frequency is zero.
. . .

You've lost me. What is the meaning of a "time constant" in steady
state?
What effect does it have? With a single frequency of constant
amplitude,
how could you tell whether a circuit, resonant or not, has a "time
constant"? How could you measure it?

The meaning of a time constant is not dependent upon steady state
sinusoids
or transient; it is merely a characteristic that dependent upon the
*physical* properties of the components in the circuit.

You know that of course.

Let us say we design a power supply for use in consumer appliances. The
power supply of course has a capacitor across line and neutral for EMI
filtering, along with a bleeder resistor in parallel with this capacitor.
Together, the bleeder resistor and phase/phase capacitor filter have a
time
constant. Now the time constant is meaningless with respect to steady
state
input voltage (other than wave shaping high f emi components) and with
respect to transients. It is meaningful with respect to safety. If the
consumer pulls out the plug, the bleeder resistor must discharge the
phase
to phase cap safely to prevent the consumer from being shocked when
touching
the L-N pins. The time constant RC in this case MUST meet certain
specifications, that is it must be less than 0.1sec. That is essentially
required legally (since standard compliance is compulsory). The time
constant exists is chosen for a worse case value, ie that the consumer
unplugs the power supply at the peak of the AC cycle.

Actually, it is the DC discharge characteristic that we care about here.
Transient suppression is not relevant nor is its ability to shape the
incoming sinusoid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I read thru all and it wasn't until thelast sentence did you state
anything that is relevent.

I really am trying to find out in what way that "time constants" are
relevant to your hypothesis or theory or whatever it is. I am surprized that
i hit something relevant. Now, you were talking about the time constant of
distributed capacitance and inductance with resistance along an antenna
radiator. I was thinking about this and I do think there "may" (or may not)
be some interesting concepts when considering an RC or R/L time contant when
the "R" is "radiation resitance"...it could be fun to think about and I will
..

But Art, how can what you have posted help me to understand why electrons
jump off the antenna wire (they are very smart because they know just when
and where to jump) and cause an effective phased array of guassian static
antennae that line themselves up in maxwelling time varying electric and
magnetic fields propagating at the speed of light, at least until
gravitational forces take over and they hit the ground :-)) ? Pardon me if
this sounds ridiculous.

That is why I say, please show me the math for whatever it is you are
proposing.

The Dc discharge characteristic
when the terminals are shorted. Discouting the spike at the
beginning the discharge is dependent on the size of the vessel
and restrictions applied by the circuit. The larger the vessel
the sharper the curve with respect to time. This goes for both
the inductance and the capacitance and it is only the losses
which are small take away the perpetual motion.
I suggest you go to google and look up a "tank circuit"

Geeze, come on Art...

where they will I am sure take you thru the phase changes
that create the pendulum like action.
But then you knew that all along, anything but review the math.
Hot air once again.

Well, it all comes from the heat stored in the resistor when the distributed
capacitance along the antenna discharges in the ohmic resistance in your 50
ohm antenna :-))) (god this is getting ridiculous)....show me your math.

Why not discuss it with the broadcast engineer

You mean some guy who learned electronics in the Navy and he 'knows all
there is to know and what he don't know ain't worth knowin' anyway'? Your
theory supposedly rises about all that! Now show us the math.

with his long time service at switching on a transmitter every
morning,every day
plus turn the lights out. As Vanna White would say in defence of her
salary status
You have to know the alphabet

I am getting ready to drop out of the conversation...the math please?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

By all means drop out. Until somebody comes along and faults the math
I am
doomed to accept it.
Please please do as you said, that you can handle the math and prove
it in error
so I can remove myself from this mess.Many have said they can but none
have
shown that they are capable Considering all the postings on this
subject
there must have been somebody who can actually do mathematics so why
are they
reluctant to come forward. Is the math really to difficult for the
average student
or is there some fear associated with it that imposes silence?
We have college teachers among this group so certainly if it was in
error they would be quick to say so. Doesn't their absence bother you?
Just state that the math is in error as presented by Dr Davis and why
then
everything comes to a halt.
The subject which is causing anger falls completely apart when that
fact
comes to light.You ask for the math and I give you the math, what's
holding you up?
Subject closed until the math is subjected beyond the past peer review
which
states that it is accurate and correct.
Talk is just not capable of destroying the truth of mathematics.