"J.B. Wood" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 06/14/2012 12:48 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"J.B. napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 06/13/2012 06:11 PM, garyr wrote:
This site http://www.frontiernet.net/~jadale/Loop.htm states that: "A
properly designed Loop primarily responds to the magnetic component of
the
radio wave. Note that noise resides primarily in the electrical
component..."
Hello, and a loop (dipole) antenna doesn't "respond" to just the
magnetic
(electric) component of a propagating electromagnetic wave. A
(receiving)
loop or dipole antenna intercepts the incoming electromagnetic (EM)
wave.
Last time I checked an EM wave had both electric and magnetic
components.
Just because an orientation of an axis of the antenna resulting in
maximum
signal strength is parallel to the electric or magnetic component of an
EM
wave doesn't mean that it's responding to just that component.
I wish hams and others would quit trying to redefine electromagnetic
theory. Hams have designed and constructed novel and practical antennas
over the years but their explanations about how they work are often just
plain wrong. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,
The explanations are wrong because the radio waves are simply the
electric
waves or the electron waves.
Hello, and they are most certainly not "electric" waves.
For the all Fathers of the radio they are the electric waves.
What part of "electromagnetic" don't you understand?
I understand the Maxwell's and the Heaviside's. What are you asking about?
(It's just this kind of stuff that prompted my previous post) I take it
you're not an EE or have ever taken any undergrad/grad courses in EM
theory.
Father's of the radio also.
Maxwell's model was discarded by Royal Society and the Heaviside's was done
after the fundamental experimments.
Radio waves and light are the oscillatory flow of electrons (L. Lorenz
1869).
In any event someone else can continue this starting-to-drift off topic
thread. Sincerely,
You wrote: "Hams have designed and constructed novel and practical antennas
over the years but their explanations about how they work are often just
plain wrong."
Could you give as the correct explanation?
S*
--
J. B. Wood e-mail: