As an engineer, I have taken all the courses to make me as smart as I need
to be, right? No, not a chance. Here I sit, stupified, not even knowing
which variables to put in a formula.

To be found: How far will I get into a newsgroup thread before it
degenerates into name calling, circular reasoning, begging the question,
etc.

Maxwell never dreamed of this.

Sal M. Onella wrote:

[...]

plonk ...

JS

I find that there are many anomalies in RF theory. For example, Maxwells
Equations show reflection at a boundary where current flows in the metal
surface down to the skin depth. Books then state that this boundary
condition applies to waves guided by two wires. The wires therefore sort of
reflect the wave and guide it. Power flows as the Poynting vector.

Current can be a flow of electrons or holes. If the current in a P type
semiconductor is holes, it is a flow of emptiness or nothing.

Current is normally said to be the flow of electrons. The electrons actually
move very slowly with a drift velocity of a few mm per second. The signal
part of the current that flows near speed of light is the electromagnetic
wave that flows in the area outside the conductor.

There seem to be a number of disputes in RF e.g. about the effectiveness of
conjugate matching with Walter Maxwell refuting articles in his book
"Reflections".

RF seems to be a black art e.g. when it comes to S parameters, network
analysers, phase matching and batch matching of cables. Little seems to be
written down.

The problems you're encountering are the result of trying to
oversimplify electromagnetic theory by reducing it to conceptual models
which are far from adequate. Your basic conceptual models are faulty, so
any conclusions you draw from using these models will eventually lead to
contradictions. That same problem has, in fact, been the cause of a huge
number of argumentative postings on this newsgroup.

You have a great deal of curiosity about electromagnetic phenomena, so
you'd benefit a great deal from a bit of education. To fully understand
electromagnetics, you need a solid background in mathematics. Without
the solid background of math and electromagnetic theory, you'll always
find it necessary to use oversimplified models, and those will always
lead to contradictions. It takes considerable time and effort to gain
the necessary background, but if you truly want the answers to your
questions, it's the only way.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

David wrote:
I find that there are many anomalies in RF theory. For example, Maxwells
Equations show reflection at a boundary where current flows in the metal
surface down to the skin depth. Books then state that this boundary
condition applies to waves guided by two wires. The wires therefore sort of
reflect the wave and guide it. Power flows as the Poynting vector.

Current can be a flow of electrons or holes. If the current in a P type
semiconductor is holes, it is a flow of emptiness or nothing.

Current is normally said to be the flow of electrons. The electrons actually
move very slowly with a drift velocity of a few mm per second. The signal
part of the current that flows near speed of light is the electromagnetic
wave that flows in the area outside the conductor.

There seem to be a number of disputes in RF e.g. about the effectiveness of
conjugate matching with Walter Maxwell refuting articles in his book
"Reflections".

RF seems to be a black art e.g. when it comes to S parameters, network
analysers, phase matching and batch matching of cables. Little seems to be
written down.

In article , Roy Lewallen
wrote:

The problems you're encountering are the result of trying to
oversimplify electromagnetic theory by reducing it to conceptual models
which are far from adequate. Your basic conceptual models are faulty, so
any conclusions you draw from using these models will eventually lead to
contradictions. That same problem has, in fact, been the cause of a huge
number of argumentative postings on this newsgroup.

snip

Well stated, Roy. I suspect the majority of hams are not degreed EEs that
have delved into elementary electromagnetic theory (It was the least
popular EE course when I was an undergrad.) Of course you don't need an
in-depth understanding to get on the air. The problem, as you point out,
arises when folks start going beyond the "practical" and hobby aspects
(e.g. beyond the scope of the ARRL handbooks) by providing explanations of
phenomena that are not supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied in
Maxell's equations.

Then there's a university EE professor who should know the theory and ends
up supporting misguided concepts like the crossed-field antenna (CFA).
Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

Then there's a university EE professor who should know the theory and ends
up supporting misguided concepts like the crossed-field antenna (CFA).
Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

And then there is our fractal boy - who thankfully has morphed into
shilling gullible governmental and commercial purchasing agents..

denny

J. B. Wood wrote:
Then there's a university EE professor who should know the theory and ends
up supporting misguided concepts like the crossed-field antenna (CFA).

Then there are the people on this newsgroup who presuppose
that the lumped circuit model is adequate for analyzing 75m
Texas Bugcatcher coils.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

The Elite rising still aye , as a hobby or not , what i know is if there
is enough spark no matter what , it sparks no matter what...... Quantify
that... and that is a sarcastik knock ... Great minds that no know of
the Alien...

Positive about being Negative

P.


"J. B. Wood" wrote in message
...
In article , Roy Lewallen
wrote:

The problems you're encountering are the result of trying to
oversimplify electromagnetic theory by reducing it to conceptual
models
which are far from adequate. Your basic conceptual models are faulty,
so
any conclusions you draw from using these models will eventually lead
to
contradictions. That same problem has, in fact, been the cause of a
huge
number of argumentative postings on this newsgroup.

snip

Well stated, Roy. I suspect the majority of hams are not degreed EEs
that
have delved into elementary electromagnetic theory (It was the least
popular EE course when I was an undergrad.) Of course you don't need
an
in-depth understanding to get on the air. The problem, as you point
out,
arises when folks start going beyond the "practical" and hobby aspects
(e.g. beyond the scope of the ARRL handbooks) by providing
explanations of
phenomena that are not supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied
in
Maxell's equations.

Then there's a university EE professor who should know the theory and
ends
up supporting misguided concepts like the crossed-field antenna (CFA).
Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

On 2 May, 04:13, (J. B. Wood) wrote:
In article , Roy Lewallen

wrote:
The problems you're encountering are the result of trying to
oversimplify electromagnetic theory by reducing it to conceptual models
which are far from adequate. Your basic conceptual models are faulty, so
any conclusions you draw from using these models will eventually lead to
contradictions. That same problem has, in fact, been the cause of a huge
number of argumentative postings on this newsgroup.

snip

Well stated, Roy. I suspect the majority of hams are not degreed EEs that
have delved into elementary electromagnetic theory (It was the least
popular EE course when I was an undergrad.) Of course you don't need an
in-depth understanding to get on the air. The problem, as you point out,
arises when folks start going beyond the "practical" and hobby aspects
(e.g. beyond the scope of the ARRL handbooks) by providing explanations of
phenomena that are not supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied in
Maxell's equations.

snip

Hmmmmm!

Then how do you account for the broad rejection from
"EE"s of Gaussian antennas that comply and are
supported by electromagnetic theory as embodied
in Maxwells equations ?
As you put your address as the "Naval Research
Laboratory" where would you place the responsability
for rejection?
Personaly I would place it in the syndrome of

" Not invented at my place"

which always trumps the pursuit of pure science.
You are not alone ofcourse, as even esteemed
institutions such as Nasa and Universities follow
the same regimen since their concerns are with
their own pockets rather than science for itself.
I read the other day that antenna design was
holding up what appears to be tremendous
advances in science especially in the science
of communications. Yet derision is placed at
the feet of the inventors of many antenna theories
for having the temerity of challenging the "all is known"
attitudes where curiousity should have always reigned.

Art.


,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337