On 17 Jan, 13:30, wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:13*pm, art wrote:
On 17 Jan, 09:51, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
How can one focus so long on travelling and standing waves when the
radiation portion
of the subject has not been explained? If waves is the subject it
cannot be discussed coherently if you cannot describe the mechanism of
radiation, ...
The mechanism of radiation is pretty simple from a quantum
electrodynamic standpoint. Accelerated electrons emit
photons. Some of the photons escape the antenna. The
energy lost by the escaping photons must be replaced
by the source. QED. :-)
Art, if you would replace electrons with photons in
your blast-off theory, you will be closer to the facts.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com
If it concentrated on
say, a simple parallel circuit, a very simple circuit then the
absolute physics of what is being discussed would be an immense help
in explaining this wave discussion.ARRL states that an antenna is a
simple parallel circuit
Here is my civil response: For this discussion there is little benefit
in using lumped component theory. The standing wave stores energy in
an antenna in a manner similar to energy stored in an inductor and a
capacitor in a resonant component circuit but it is not very useful to
use lumped components when explaining why a standing wave cannot be
used to measure delay in a coil, for example.
Further questions that challenge your (and the ARRL's) simplified
model:
Is the resonant circuit dependent on the capacitance and inductance of
the antenna or its length?
If your answer is "both", (which it is), why does it happen to be
both?
Why does 1/4WL of the length of the antenna just happen to be a
resonant point of the capacitance (in x _farads) and inductance (in y-
henries) of the antenna?
Why physically is that so? Nature is telling you something there.
You should understand that concept well before you get to the
radiation of particles (and they WILL be photons).
AI4QJ
but this concentration on antenna workings is
blind siding every body as well as providing a means for twisting the
discussion because the makings of radiation is not known.
Why not illustrate waves in a simple parallel circuit so that
observers can partake in this discussion which, if it ever comes to
closure, could then be used to demonstrate their effect on radiation?
Onlookers are more than willing to partake in the discussion but
presently they are on the side lines because as presented it is
limited to only those whose intent is to argue without obtaining
closure and their feeding habits are insatiable as you are finding
out.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Why are you asking me all these questions?
Can't you read a book?
Why not ask an expert on Eham and then come back
armed for an arguement. At the moment you are un armed
and defenceless. By the way the money is still out there.
It is not such a large amount but it will pay for lunch
while you crow about proving me a liar or you could be crying
about how you were dethroned instead. T'was you who made
that foolish statement in the first place. Somebody stated
that they had a 160M antenna on the top of their tower which
isaparently is rediculous. Now a small amount of money is
being mentioned and now you have second thoughts.
A 160M antenna is crazy for those who believe all is known about
antennas
and you perceive yourself as an expert.What are you waiting
for,chicken wings?