Richard Harrison wrote:
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.

Yes, I believe you are right about that.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

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

The same laws of physics apply to both. There are not, as you are
trying to imply, a separate set of laws for EM waves on a wire
and EM waves in free space.

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

It keeps some people from sweeping the photonic nature of EM waves
under the old standing wave rug. I won't mention any names.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 10 May, 13:38, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
Some time ago I stated that a yagi antenna operated under a
mathematical binomial function. This was termed as junk science in
this group which raises the question again as where does the energy
that is not reradiated go ?

" A perfectly matched antenna only reradiates 50 % of the energy that
it receives"

This also suggests that an array without parasitics required for
reradiation is a lot more efficient than an antenna with parasitics.
Seems like this group is going around in circles unless this 50% finds
a way to radiate in some alternative way !
Is the 'perfectly matched' statement of any importance that demands
it's inclusion with respect to re-radiation efficiency of an antenna?
Regards
Art

Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard,

That is a well-known factoid. Do you think it differs from something I
said? You note that current is involved in the reradiation.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Richard Harrison wrote:

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.

It seems to me there is more than just one way to use a wire to convey
a signal. In fact it can be difficult to prevent a wire from using
more than just one, especially when there are other wires nearby.

73, Jim AC6XG

Gene Fuller wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

That is a well-known factoid. Do you think it differs from something I
said? You note that current is involved in the reradiation.

Hint: If waves cause currents that in turn, cause
re-radiation, then Richard has proved your, "waves
don't cause radiation", assertion to be false.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
It seems to me there is more than just one way to use a wire to convey a
signal. In fact it can be difficult to prevent a wire from using more
than just one, especially when there are other wires nearby.

Yep, I'm afraid that Kraus was wrong to a certain degree.
Of course, he didn't have NEC in 1950. If we double Kraus'
calculated relative phase velocity for loading coils, we
will be closer to the results predicted by EZNEC.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I also forgot that all standing waves are identical, whether in free
space or on a wire.

The same laws of physics apply to both. There are not, as you are
trying to imply, a separate set of laws for EM waves on a wire
and EM waves in free space.

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

It keeps some people from sweeping the photonic nature of EM waves
under the old standing wave rug. I won't mention any names.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

What rug? What are you talking about? How does the (unnecessary) use of
photons change anything?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

That is a well-known factoid. Do you think it differs from something I
said? You note that current is involved in the reradiation.

Hint: If waves cause currents that in turn, cause
re-radiation, then Richard has proved your, "waves
don't cause radiation", assertion to be false.

Cecil,

Back to playing the moron role? If you no longer want to discuss
anything in technical terms, then I will go away again for a while.

Is there a lot of current in your free space world?

73,
Gene
W4SZ