Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:34:32 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Adding photons into the discussion of HF radiation adds absolutely
nothing but confusion.

Hi Gene,

I seriously doubt that, the confusion is already super-saturated.
Perhaps you meant it might add more precipitate.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
On May 10, 11:25 am, Chuck wrote:
Thank you for nicely elucidating the
distinctions in emphasis between
"science" and engineering, Keith.

I believe a perfect (just to keep this
at an abstract level) SA reveals the
underlying reality of the modulated AM
carrier.

Let me offer two examples.

I turn on my RF signal generator. I turn up the RF Level,
then I turn it down, then up, then down, ....
I can see this varying RF level on my oscilloscope (slow
sweep), and even on my RF voltmeter.
I know I am varying the level of the RF.
But I also know that I could produce exactly the same
output by adding 3 signals of slightly different frequency
together. I am not at all comfortable with saying the latter
is 'real' while the former isn't. I know I was varying the RF
Level.

Or,
I turn on my RF signal generator with some level for 1
minute. I turn it off for a week. I turn it on for one minute.
I turn it off. I compute the Fourier transform. I can create
exactly the same signal by adding all the Fourier terms,
extending forward and backwards in time, forever.
But is this more real than: I turn it on, then off, then
on, then off?

Using these examples, I can find no reason why the
multiple signal explanation is more real than the
varying amplitude explanation. And I suggest, that for
these two cases, the varying amplitude explanation
is probably more useful.

...Keith


Well, if I understand, and I often
don't, you are saying that the spectrum
produced by method 1 is
indistinguishable from the spectrum
produced by method 2 and THEREFORE,
neither spectrum alone can be considered
true reality.

I grant immediately that it doesn't
matter how you produce the spectrum.

What is at issue, if I am not mistaken,
is whether the reality is that which is
observed on the scope, vs. that which is
observed on the SA (in the case of an
amplitude modulated carrier, of course).

Abstracting, there are three (by
assumption) coherent sinusoids in the AM
modulation case. Each can be directly
measured and characterized.

A composite of these sinusoids can be
displayed on a scope. Any number of
mathematical or electronic operations
can be performed on the sinusoids, and
the results displayed on a scope.

Usefulness, like convenience, may share
a bed with veracity, but its intentions
should be suspect.

I guess I can continue to assert that
mathematical equivalence between
frequency and time domains is not
evidence to me of an underlying duality
in reality, and you can continue to
assert that to you, it is. And I guess
we could still be friends. ;-)

73,

Chuck





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
There seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect here. Waves don't
create radiation; photons don't create radiation; accelerating charges
do create radiation.

Who cares? Photons can form standing waves in free space.
Where are your accelerating charges in a vacuum? Everything
that happens to EM waves in a wire, or a waveguide, also
happen to EM waves in free space.

You want to talk about the ocean and ignore the Tsunami.

What difference does it make if the wave on the antenna and the radiated
wave in space can be defined as photons?

Answer: None whatsoever, ...

That's your agenda and you're sticking to it. Like
I said, some people apparently enjoy hoodwinking the
uninitiated. What else do you have to gain by ignoring
the photonic nature of EM waves?

Accelerating charges do not morph into EM waves.
Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave. Ignoring the photonic nature of EM waves is
the cause of the present mass confusion about
standing waves. Why on earth would you want that
mass confusion to continue?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

2*Pi*radius


Sorry, I'm a little handicapped since I have never seen
"Figure 7-19" and it has been removed from the web site.

I have the file. It's 7.5 megabytes. Do you have a broadband connection?

73 jk

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On 9 May 2007 23:29:28 -0700, Jim Kelley wrote:

Ok. But what I was asking is what does any of that have to do with a
bolt?


The travel of one turn of a point at the radius (helical distance) in
relation to the travel of the same point in the depth (the linear
displacement after 360 degrees of the turn) is related to pitch. A
simple mechanical relationship. This is the bolt.

Thanks so much, Richard. I'm going to keep this on file somewhere in
case I ever forget what a bolt is. :-)

73, ac6xg

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Sorry, I'm a little handicapped since I have never seen
"Figure 7-19" and it has been removed from the web site.

I have the file. It's 7.5 megabytes. Do you have a broadband connection?

Yes, I have DSL but I also have the 3rd edition of "Antennas".
I think "Figure 8-32: Relative phase velocity p for different
pitch angles as a function of the helix circumference, C(lamda),
for the condition of in-phase fields in the axial direction",
is probably the same graph as Figure 7-19 in the 1st edition.
I'm assuming that the "relative phase velocity" is the same
thing as the VF of the coil.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Chuck wrote:

Keith Dysart wrote:
Using these examples, I can find no reason why the
multiple signal explanation is more real than the
varying amplitude explanation. And I suggest, that for
these two cases, the varying amplitude explanation
is probably more useful.

...Keith


Well, if I understand, and I often don't, you are saying that the
spectrum produced by method 1 is indistinguishable from the spectrum
produced by method 2 and THEREFORE, neither spectrum alone can be
considered true reality.

What he said is neither case is less real than the other. It's simply
two different ways of describing the same thing. Have a look at a
table of trigonometric identities. It is a list of different ways of
saying the same thing, mathematically. Each is real in one way or
another, but not necessarily in the same way.

I guess I can continue to assert that mathematical equivalence between
frequency and time domains is not evidence to me of an underlying
duality in reality, and you can continue to assert that to you, it is.

I guess that would depend on what underlying duality you are inferring
from the mathematical equivalence. Not that it necessarily applies
here, but one of the problems we frequently face here on the newsgroup
is a direct result of incorrect inference.

And I guess we could still be friends. ;-)

One of the great contributors to the ham radio newsgroups used to
remind us that "a gentleman is a man who can disagree without being
disagreeable". The challenge then is to remain agreeable amidst a
barrage of disagreeable comments.

73, Jim AC6XG

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

do you now how to explain this so normal people can understand?
On May 6, 6:27 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
If a Texas Bugcatcher Coil could be turned into a
traveling wave device instead of a standing wave
device, the inherent phase shift through the coil
would become obvious. I used the Helix option in
EZNEC to generate a reasonably close model of a
75m Texas Bugcatcher coil and loaded it with a
resistance equal to the coil's characteristic impedance
which essentially eliminated the reflected current,
leaving the forward current intact and visible. All
of the data points on the following web page came from
EZNEC. All of the files are available for downloading.
Please take a look at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/current2.htm
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"I`m assuming that the "relative phase velocity" is the same thing as
the VF of the coil."

Back a couple of pages on 251, Kraus defines v/c as equal to "relative
phase velocity of the wave propagating along the helical conductor, v
being the phase velocity along the helical conductor and c being the
velocity of light in free space."

Repetition of "along the helical conductor" implies to me, thal like
Terman, Kraus says the signal follows the actual wire, not sprinting
across the coil as if it were a straight rod.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
There seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect here. Waves don't
create radiation; photons don't create radiation; accelerating charges
do create radiation.

Who cares? Photons can form standing waves in free space.
Where are your accelerating charges in a vacuum? Everything
that happens to EM waves in a wire, or a waveguide, also
happen to EM waves in free space.

You want to talk about the ocean and ignore the Tsunami.

What difference does it make if the wave on the antenna and the
radiated wave in space can be defined as photons?

Answer: None whatsoever, ...

That's your agenda and you're sticking to it. Like
I said, some people apparently enjoy hoodwinking the
uninitiated. What else do you have to gain by ignoring
the photonic nature of EM waves?

Accelerating charges do not morph into EM waves.
Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave. Ignoring the photonic nature of EM waves is
the cause of the present mass confusion about
standing waves. Why on earth would you want that
mass confusion to continue?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


Cecil,

So sorry. I thought that your 75m Bugcatcher Coil was a real, metallic
object. If it is really nothing but free space, then I will agree with
your assertions. The waves on your free space coil therefore have no
connection to charges on a wire.

I also forgot that all standing waves are identical, whether in free
space or on a wire.

I particularly love the wording you used, "Accelerating charges do not
morph into EM waves. Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave."

Did you ever hear of wave-particle duality? Did you ever read a serious
treatment of radiation from antennas. Did you find lots of references to
photon release, say, in Kraus or Balanis?

Reversing the question you posed above, what do you gain by including
the photonic nature of EM waves?

I will try harder to follow the change of topic in the future.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ