Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 10 May, 12:06, art wrote:
On 10 May, 11:45, wrote: robert casey wrote: art wrote: What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator compared with with the number of electrons emmitted due to current flow? What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to form a radiation field? Regards Art You mean the radiation from an antenna driven by a radio transmitter? It doesn't emit electrons, but it does emit photons at that radio frequency. Go find a book on electromagnetism and fields, but be prepared for calculus level math in that book. I took such a class 30 years ago, and got a "C", and remember even less now. A high school physics book might be enough depending on your needs. The current (May/June) issue of QEX contains the article: Electromagnetic Radiation: A Brief Tutorial It contains equations but no calculus that I noticed. "magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator" isn't mentioned, but that isn't a surprise to most people. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Jim, you have no legitamacy in the subject of radiation, your past posts prove that. On top of that you do not talk for most people as you intimate. You haven't yet capitulated on the static subject or negated the truth of the mathematics and examples supplied. Just stating consistently that you can't this or you can't that just doesn't elevate your stature.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Some have stated that 377 ohms is a ratio. I don't understand that assertion since I understood that a ratio is not confined to a specific unit and in fact does not have units. I am aware that the impedance of a particular atmosphere is 377 ohms but that is certainly not a ratio. Some say one must have a knoweledge of calculus to understand radiation. Another declares he read a book on radiation that did not use calculus which is just as well if one becomes careless with terms such as a ratio. But no matter, this newsgroup is a living example of the use of free speech where amateurs can take on the guise of professionalism despite their lowly education level. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
Particels of what?
On May 9, 6:44 pm, art wrote: On 9 May, 17:37, Cecil Moore wrote: art wrote: What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator compared with with the number of electrons emmitted due to current flow? Art, emitted electrons are corona discharges. What is emitted from an antenna is primarily photons. Each photon has both electric and magnetic properties and the ratio is 377 ohms in the far field. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil, When power is supplied there are two vectors formed by particles that are emitted from the radiator. I am looking for the ratio of particals emitted. You can call them photons, electrons, particles or what ever is fine by me. The second question is related to the flow or movement of these particles from the enclosed surface to the outside of the surface ( I will call this an arbitary boundary unless there is cries of disagreement). The passage of the two types of particles thru the boundary allows for the combination of their individual energies to form a radiated field. Thus I was asking what the ratio of one type of particle to the other type of particle is required to do that. Obviously if the combination is created by collision it would appear that the ratio is 1:1 but I do not know personally how the combination occurrs. I understand that the electrons change wavelength to break away from the gravitational field (equilibrium) at the parting point and then change back to the originating wavelength at or before the formation of the radiating field. If this is correct then the number of electrons if any that do NOT escape from the enclosed surface have to be accounted for UNLESS ALL ESCAPE which would infer an equal ratio of electron emmissionfor the formation of a radiative field. If the initial ratio is not equal then obviously the rest will return to the initial gravitational field possibly to form a skin depth since the velocity of return is the same as the initiating velocity. Hopefully the above will apply a clue as to where I am comming from. Regards Art |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
art wrote:
I am aware that the impedance of a particular atmosphere is 377 ohms but that is certainly not a ratio. From: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...845268,00.html Mathematically, the Zo of free space is equal to the square root of the ratio of the permeability of free space (µo) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m): Zo = (µo/o)1/2 = [(1.257 x 10-6 H/m)/(8.85 x 10-12 F/m)]1/2 = 377 ohms (approximately) The exact value of the Zo of free space is 120 pi ohms, where pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
art wrote:
On 10 May, 11:45, wrote: robert casey wrote: art wrote: What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator compared with with the number of electrons emmitted due to current flow? What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to form a radiation field? Regards Art You mean the radiation from an antenna driven by a radio transmitter? It doesn't emit electrons, but it does emit photons at that radio frequency. Go find a book on electromagnetism and fields, but be prepared for calculus level math in that book. I took such a class 30 years ago, and got a "C", and remember even less now. A high school physics book might be enough depending on your needs. The current (May/June) issue of QEX contains the article: Electromagnetic Radiation: A Brief Tutorial It contains equations but no calculus that I noticed. "magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator" isn't mentioned, but that isn't a surprise to most people. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Jim, you have no legitamacy in the subject of radiation, your past posts prove that. On top of that you do not talk for most people as you intimate. As for "legitamacy" (sic), I have an EE degree and 35 years experience in the field, do you? As for speaking for others, I mearly noted that babbling nonsense about "magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator" not being in the article will not be a surprise to most of the people who post here. You haven't yet capitulated on the static subject or negated the truth of the mathematics and examples supplied. Just stating consistently that you can't this or you can't that just doesn't elevate your stature. I haven't a clue what all that babble means as with most of your babbling, strung on sentence structured, non-paragraph formatted, rambling, postings. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 10 May, 12:58, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote: I am aware that the impedance of a particular atmosphere is 377 ohms but that is certainly not a ratio. From:http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...845268,00.html Mathematically, the Zo of free space is equal to the square root of the ratio of the permeability of free space (µo) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m): Zo = (µo/o)1/2 = [(1.257 x 10-6 H/m)/(8.85 x 10-12 F/m)]1/2 = 377 ohms (approximately) The exact value of the Zo of free space is 120 pi ohms, where pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com O.k. Cecil I will for the moment embrace that a ratio must have a unit of measurement which puts me in line with all the amateurs of this newsgroup (see I am flexible). I will also change from particles now, to electrons and now to protons as requested ( see I am flexible again) For my interest, what is the unit that must be used for the front to back ratio of a directive antenna? Regards Art |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t... art wrote: I am aware that the impedance of a particular atmosphere is 377 ohms but that is certainly not a ratio. From: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...845268,00.html Mathematically, the Zo of free space is equal to the square root of the ratio of the permeability of free space (µo) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m): Zo = (µo/o)1/2 = [(1.257 x 10-6 H/m)/(8.85 x 10-12 F/m)]1/2 = 377 ohms (approximately) The exact value of the Zo of free space is 120 pi ohms, where pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Also the ratio of E/H. [(V/m)/(A/m)] = [ohms]. Frank |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
art wrote:
For my interest, what is the unit that must be used for the front to back ratio of a directive antenna? Power ratios are commonly stated in dB. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
Frank's wrote:
Also the ratio of E/H. [(V/m)/(A/m)] = [ohms]. Is that a cause or an effect? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
Art wrote:
"For my interest, what is the unit that must be used for front to back ratio of a directive antenna?" I must be an idiot for venturing an answer, but ratios can be just numbers, but numbers have origins. If radiated power in one direction is twice that in another (reference), we can say it has a directive gain of two or we can say it has a 3 dB gain. Front to back ratios have the same origins and units. For legitimacy, Terman says on page 871 of his 1955 opus: "The directive gain can be expressed either as a power ratio, or in terms of the equivalent number of decibels. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 10 May, 14:41, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote: "For my interest, what is the unit that must be used for front to back ratio of a directive antenna?" I must be an idiot for venturing an answer, but ratios can be just numbers, but numbers have origins. If radiated power in one direction is twice that in another (reference), we can say it has a directive gain of two or we can say it has a 3 dB gain. Front to back ratios have the same origins and units. For legitimacy, Terman says on page 871 of his 1955 opus: "The directive gain can be expressed either as a power ratio, or in terms of the equivalent number of decibels. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI So it is now the norm not to cancel units of measurement in physics? Woe is me. Free speech takes on a new meaning for some but not acceptable from others meaning a term for a formula can now be called a ratio with units of one's choice. Still, this is amateur radio after all, it does not have to follow professional standards as most was learned in the CB era |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: @$10NOS LEWIS & KAUFMAN, Ltd. LOS GATOS 254 ELECTRON TUBERARE | Boatanchors | |||
WTB: Tube, electron = 6DR7 | Swap | |||
FA: EIMAC 3-500Z ELECTRON TUBE AND HR-6 PLATE CAP | Swap | |||
Lennie's Back In Form...Old Rant's...Same Form... | Policy | |||
inducors/form factors/radiation revisited | Antenna |