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

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
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


what is a 'magnetic electron'?? and why would electrons be emmitted due to
current flow?

On Thu, 10 May 2007 00:23:40 GMT, "Dave" wrote:


"art" wrote in message
roups.com...
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


what is a 'magnetic electron'?? and why would electrons be emmitted due to
current flow?


Hi Dave,

All electrons are magnetic. All electrons flow in current. Electrons
emmitted (sic) would first have to be accelerated by a potential that
exceeds the work function of the metal they inhabit, and then avoid
the resistance to their movement found outside that metal. This is
called induction current.

Emission, except in a vacuum, is considered to be a nuisance as it
causes havoc in the vicinity (such as superheating air to
luminescence). There would be electrons of emission only in the first
few micrometers from the conductor (not sure why that would be of any
particular advantage). Of course, all such terms and their usages are
conventional. Their usage and application in this thread probably
have meanings that deviate wildly from the norms of accepted usage.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Art Unwin wrote:
"What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to
form a radiation field?"

A company called Tigertek, Inc. answers questions such as this. Art can
search on "amateur radio fact of the day from Tigertek" and their pages
should appear. Click on "Facts of the Day, Software and Forums". Select
"November 26, and see: "Electromagnetic E/H Ratio". Click and find:
"----at a distance of several wavelengths or more from any type of
electromagnetic radiator the ratio of electric to magnetic field
strength (E/H) always becomes equal to approximately 377 ohms, which is
the approximate electromagnetic impedance of space."

Jan 3: Electron Facts

July 29: Does Your Antenna Radiate Particles?
"----Unlike protons and neutrons, photons have zero rest mass. (Albert
Einstein`s special relativity theory predicted that massless particles
travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.) Furthermore, unlike protons
and neutrons which are composed of smaller particles called quarks that
are bound together with massless smaller particles called gluons,
photons (and electrons) are elemental particles that are not composed of
smaller particles. Transmitting antennas do indeed radiate particles."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Thu, 10 May 2007 00:18:25 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

"----Unlike protons and neutrons, photons have zero rest mass. (Albert
Einstein`s special relativity theory predicted that massless particles
travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.)

It should be added that "particles" accelerated to the speed of light
(radiation) have infinite mass requiring infinite energy to get them
there.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark writes:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 00:18:25 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

"----Unlike protons and neutrons, photons have zero rest mass. (Albert
Einstein`s special relativity theory predicted that massless particles
travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.)

It should be added that "particles" accelerated to the speed of light
(radiation) have infinite mass requiring infinite energy to get them
there.

Particles with non zero rest mass, that is.

Ahhh come on guys, and Art, , get a grip...

Electrons are 'emitted' from the surface of a conductor only under
specific circumstances, such as the Photoelectric Effect, in a direct
electric arc such as an arc welder, off the hot surface of a
filament, off the cathode of an electroplating device, etc.... All of
these are mass events where the departing electrons will in time
change/erode the surface material of the emitter...


Electrons do not normally depart the surface of an RF antenna; local
corona discharge, or mechanical short circuit, or electric arc, being
the main exceptions and are not germain to the intended purpose of
the RF antenna..
The antenna surface is not eroded or mass altered by the long term
emission of electromagetic waves because no electrons are being
launched/emitted off the surface res ipsa loquitor...

OK, now back to the regularily scheduled reruns of Howdy Doody you
can learn a lot from these

denny / k8do

Denny wrote:
Electrons are 'emitted' from the surface of a conductor only under
specific circumstances, such as the Photoelectric Effect, in a direct
electric arc such as an arc welder, off the hot surface of a
filament, off the cathode of an electroplating device, etc.... All of
these are mass events where the departing electrons will in time
change/erode the surface material of the emitter...

Is that because the departing electrons leave "holes"
in the conductor atoms? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 10 May, 04:43, Denny wrote:
Ahhh come on guys, and Art, , get a grip...

Electrons are 'emitted' from the surface of a conductor only under
specific circumstances, such as the Photoelectric Effect, in a direct
electric arc such as an arc welder, off the hot surface of a
filament, off the cathode of an electroplating device, etc.... All of
these are mass events where the departing electrons will in time
change/erode the surface material of the emitter...

Electrons do not normally depart the surface of an RF antenna; local
corona discharge, or mechanical short circuit, or electric arc, being
the main exceptions and are not germain to the intended purpose of
the RF antenna..
The antenna surface is not eroded or mass altered by the long term
emission of electromagetic waves because no electrons are being
launched/emitted off the surface res ipsa loquitor...

OK, now back to the regularily scheduled reruns of Howdy Doody you
can learn a lot from these

denny / k8do

Denny, I believe you are correct that what is known as basic physics
does not have universal consensus in this group which is not all that
bad because we are all amateurs.I know that mass is not constant in
itself since it is always self adjusting to maintain equilibrium. It
would also appear that what is emitted is so small and numourous that
it can be seen as a cloud or a field.
I also believe there is some sort of consensus that these two clouds
are still somewhat homogenous after they have escaped from the initial
gravitational forcesi.e merging of these entities is achieved beyond
the arbitary border.
Some have gone off at a tangent by introducing 377 ohms as a ratio
which ofcourse is an impossibility which destoys the credability of
their whole statement. At the back of my mind I was trying to
determine how the makeup of skin depth occurs since at a moment in
time the surface of the conductor is seen as composed entirely of
static particles and what changes occur when the material conducts
since the surface is totally boundduring the radiation process. So Tom
this is a good time to bow out, since once again on this group we have
encountered a situation where actual knoweledge is piece meal at best
and where continuation could only introduce falacies to the subject.
One thing I am assured of is that despite claims offered this is by no
means BASIC physics theory but a collection of fragmentary knoweledge
which could easily evolve in what is termed junk science as the many
opinions merge.
Gentlemen have a great day and try to concentrate on the beginnings
that Gauss has now provided us by the addition of the metric of time
and formulate a theory within that context since it presents an avenue
of new additional information.than that previously known.
Regards
Art