"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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]
All is O.K. Oscillating molecules produce the electron waves and in this way
lost its energy rather quickly.
But no smaller species than the electrons.
Tunnig fork transfer its energy to air molecules, air molecules to electrons
and no next step.
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 no such thing as the EM waves.
There are
electron beams, and radio waves, with very little overlap.
Like wind and sound.
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.
Cathode rays were idenified in 1895.
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.
You call it "static".
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.
For this reason the all electronic equipment have the
earth/chassis/counterpoise as e remedy.
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.
It could not be wrong because such Giants as Ampere, Faraday, Stokes,
Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac were "using real world examples and numerical
calculations."
[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.
Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac analyzed and explained
everythig.
"Maybe this will help":
1825 - Ampere publishes his collected results on magnetism. His expression
for the magnetic field produced by a small segment of current is different
from that which follows naturally from the Biot-Savart law by an additive
term which integrates to zero around closed circuit. It is unfortunate that
electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of Biot and Savart rather
than for the much more sophisticated Ampere, whose memoir contains both
mathematical analysis and experimentation, artfully blended together. In
this memoir are given some special instances of the result we now call
Stokes theorem or as we usually write it. Maxwell describes this work as
``one of the most brilliant achievements in science. The whole, theory and
experiment, seems as if it had leaped, full-grown and full-armed, from the
brain of the `Newton of electricity'. It is perfect in form and unassailable
in accuracy; and it is summed up in a formula from which all the phenomena
may be deduced, and which must always remain the cardinal formula of
electrodynamics.'' From:
http://www.electricityforum.com/a-ti...ectricity.html
"a small segment of current" = electron.
"the Biot-Savart law" = hydraulic analogy.
Teaching and science are the two different things. In teaching is the
hydraulic analogy in science are electrons.
"It is unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of
Biot and Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere".
S*