On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:24:05 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:
All is O.K. Oscillating molecules produce the electron waves and in this way
lost its energy rather quickly.
Oscillating (vibrating) molecules is a measure of heat energy. With
that explanation, it would be necessary for antennas to be hot in
order to radiate. Try again please.
But no smaller species than the electrons.
Other than positive electrons, there is only one type of electron.
Tunnig fork transfer its energy to air molecules, air molecules to electrons
and no next step.
As I previously mention, pneumatic analogies do not work well for
describing RF radiation.
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.
Nice dodge. Answer my question... same as what? What is the same as
your electron wave?
There are
electron beams, and radio waves, with very little overlap.
Like wind and sound.
Which is like an electron beam? Wind or sound?
Which is like a radio wave? Wind or sound?
How are they like each other?
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.
My antennas do not emit cathode rays. If they did, my neighborhood
would be bombarded with electrons, potentially destroying everything
it its path.
Please produce a reproducible test, that will demonstrate that charged
electrons are being emitted by an antenna. Your Nobel prize awaits
you.
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".
Static electricity? The word "static" means not moving. With static
electricity, surplus electrons (or lack of electrons) are accumulated
on an object, giving it a negative (or positive) charge. The point is
that they are not moving, just sitting there. Ever try to stop an RF
signal? You can't. You can slow it down through various materials,
but you can't stop it. RF and static are not the same. Try again.
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.
In case you haven't noticed, power lines are a balance pair. For 3
phase, they are also balanced at 120 degrees apart. The ground
connection is strictly for safety and is not required for proper
operation. It's there for safety, in the event you decide to prove
your theory by discharging the mythical positive accumulated charge to
ground through your body.
It could not be wrong because such Giants as Ampere, Faraday, Stokes,
Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac were "using real world examples and numerical
calculations."
Pick one sample calculation that demonstrates that electrons are being
emitted by transmitting antennas. There are plenty of tests that will
detect electrons. Pick one.
Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac analyzed and explained
everythig.
True, but you haven't explained anything.
http://www.electricityforum.com/a-ti...ectricity.html
Thank you for the history refresher. Unfortunately, I didn't see
anyone claiming that antennas emit electrons. Could you be a little
more specific.
"a small segment of current" = electron.
Segment? So, if I take a conductor, and cut out a segment, I can walk
away with several amps of current contained in that segment? Amazing.
"the Biot-Savart law" = hydraulic analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot-Savart law
I fail to see any mention of hydraulics in the above article. Also,
your analogy was pneumatic, not hydraulic.
Teaching and science are the two different things. In teaching is the
hydraulic analogy in science are electrons.
I'm sure the teachers in this group will be thrilled to know that what
they're teaching is not science.
"It is unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of
Biot and Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere".
If there's a conflict, simple explanations tend to prevail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Sophistication is for science fiction.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558