| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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 |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
"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? |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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 |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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 |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 9 May, 18:49, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote: I am looking for the ratio of particals emitted. To the best of my knowledge, all coherent photons are identical. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com If they are all identical how do they manage to avoid combining energy prior to escaping from the enclosed surface? I noted that you said both had electric and magnetic properties but I could not rationaly deduce that they were the same. You also stated that the electrons were corona discharges which is new to me. If this is all basic physics shouldn't everybody be in agreement with respect to the transition to a magnetic field. Tom states I have a problem with the basics so if there is uniformity in the resposes I would be happy to realigne my thoughts but he supplied no input of value only a personal opinion. Regards Art |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 9 May, 18:44, Tom Ring wrote:
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. Art does seem to have some serious problems with basic physics. Not too surprising. I guess after that remark he'll now characterize me as a guru. ;) tom K0TAR As you have stated I seem to have serious problems. If that is the case the remedy is to familiarise myself to what everybody calls basic physics. By asking questions I am seaching for a correction to my so called erronious views. Is that a no no on this newsgroup? Since it is a matter of basics the thread should be extremely short as there will be no disagreement ! I could not classify you as a guru if you are not willing to put a rod into the ground by giving a response that would prove or not prove to be in agreement with all. Art |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
art wrote:
I noted that you said both had electric and magnetic properties but I could not rationaly deduce that they were the same. Balanis has a pretty good treatment of the subject but I don't have that book with me. You also stated that the electrons were corona discharges which is new to me. Instead of becoming energetic enough to leave the conductor, electrons normally shed their excess energy in the form of photons. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 9 May, 20:23, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote: I noted that you said both had electric and magnetic properties but I could not rationaly deduce that they were the same. Balanis has a pretty good treatment of the subject but I don't have that book with me. You also stated that the electrons were corona discharges which is new to me. Instead of becoming energetic enough to leave the conductor, electrons normally shed their excess energy in the form of photons. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil, I think that we are all in agreement now on the legitimacy of adding a time metric to Gauss's equation unless it was a quirk of luck that two programs came to agreement. We also know that for a dc current flow we cannot produce a radiating field because we must have two vectors created by a time varying field. In other words the particles must be different in some way as like particals cannot collide or combine to form a radiative field. I believe we also know that any combination of particals must occur after release from the gravitational field and where I could go along with your corona description and the interface impedance of 377 ohms. From this analysis the particles could well have the same properties as you state but of different polarities which prevents initial collisions or a joining mechanism. If this conforms with known basic physics then one should see the importance of the ratio of emitted particles. If this does not conform to known basic figures I would like to know why .Then my thinking becomes in conformance with the elite in this group such that sniping and derision can come to an end. Gauss gave me the overall picture of the formation of radiation as a completed jigsaw puzzle picture but I am looking for knoweledge of the individual connecting parts for a more detailed analysis which is accepted by those familiar with basic physics to bring myself inline with those knoweledgable in the arts. All I need is some answers to my question that evokes agreement from all and the thread gets closure. If it is basic physics it should not be that hard for the experts to explain. Cecil you are familiar with the many aspects of radiation thus you have a great opportunity to supply the required info that cannot be refuted by others .,So sieze the opportunity where others are shying away. Best regards Art Art |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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 |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
|
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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. |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
art wrote:
Cecil you are familiar with the many aspects of radiation thus you have a great opportunity to supply the required info that cannot be refuted by others .,So sieze the opportunity where others are shying away. Art, I am moving myself to a new QTH and just don't have the time. To the best of my present knowledge, all of the coherent photons are identical. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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 |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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 |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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 |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
Hi Art,
If you are, as you say, interested in where you depart from simple physics; then an enumeration follows: On 10 May 2007 06:29:46 -0700, art wrote: 1) I know that mass is not constant in itself since it is always self adjusting to maintain equilibrium. Mass is constant unless you are performing nuclear reactions. You don't have sufficient energy to do that at home. 2) would also appear that what is emitted is so small and numourous that it can be seen as a cloud or a field. You don't have sufficient energy at home to force emission. An incandescent antenna is one that would be readily obvious to everyone for miles around. 3) I also believe there is some sort of consensus that these two clouds There are not two of anything in emission. 4) are still somewhat homogenous after they have escaped from the initial gravitational forcesi.e merging of these entities is achieved beyond the arbitary border. Gravity is fundamentally one of the weakest forces in nature, emission requires considerable energy and would easily eclipse its influence. 5) 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. This ratio is a fact of nature. You could, of course, change it by changing nature, or having invented an underwater CB antenna. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 10 May, 06:29, art wrote:
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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - For those who are interested in the finite details of radiation I just read in a industrial magazine that it has been determined that the electric field in the near zone is transformed into a electric field of an opposite polarity in the far zone. This by implication upsets the idea that surrounds radiation emmission from the far zone if there is still in existence an electric field. Thus it would appear that basic physics has still not determined the inter relative actions from a dormant static field to a mobile radiative field. Note that the introduction of the word of ' polarity' into the subject of antennas is not unusual in the antenna industry.i.e. it is their words not mine. Regards Arthur Art |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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. |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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. |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 (發) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m): Zo = (發/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 |
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. |
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 (發) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m): Zo = (發/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 |
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 (發) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m): Zo = (發/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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
art wrote:
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 Art, maybe you should take time to study "dimensional analysis". It really opened my eyes a half-century ago. If you want to divide joules by amps, just put the most elementary dimensions into the division and see what are the results. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 10 May, 15:24, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote: 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 Art, maybe you should take time to study "dimensional analysis". It really opened my eyes a half-century ago. If you want to divide joules by amps, just put the most elementary dimensions into the division and see what are the results. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 10 May, 15:24, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote: 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 Art, maybe you should take time to study "dimensional analysis". It really opened my eyes a half-century ago. If you want to divide joules by amps, just put the most elementary dimensions into the division and see what are the results. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil, this augument is an old one. I remember Roy really get his knickers in a twist when some of the group referred to F/B db. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow. Many antenna experts have given up on this group since they could not or would not do what you have done succesfully i.e. record posts in response to everybody and anybody. I prefer to provide a subject where I know that those who visualise themselves as pro's in the business of antennas expose their limitations to the World. It really is like politics everybody can spout about what is incorrect but few can offer an explanation of what is correct. Many just evoke memories of what they did in yesteryearat work or what they achieved in memory tests at exams when the truth is that the experience that they refer to is ones that they repeated year after year but never where they have advanced in technical proweress from times over 50 years ago, as if the World has stood still. Give me strength. We really are just a bunch of old men speaking of the old times with the same stories time over time again as if we are at a coffee break and where the majority moved over years ago from CB radio with appliance and technical mentality learned on channel 13 or what ever it was. Seems like for some over time see their experience of employment grew to the proportions of giants in industry as they grew older when in fact they are living in illusions. Thanks for the free advice as to what I should do but I already have a life. Art |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
art wrote:
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 Example: Forward gain = 12db Reverse gain = 2db Front to back ratio = 12db/2db = 6; no units as they cancel. 5th grade mathematics. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 10 May, 13:58, "Frank's"
wrote: "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 Frank, you got my attention when you pointed to the above link. I read it a few times and 377 ohms was refered to as Zo. I can't find any reference that states Zo is a ratio. Did you intend to point to another link that specifically points to Zo is a ratio? Surely you are not following in the steps of others where anything can be written right or wrong as long as it creats an augument or distress? You disapoint me! Some in this group are already thinking it is legal for a ratio to have units assigned because of the inference that the link say's it's so which is an untruth and you are perpetuating the spread of untruths. This is similar to another untruth that is being perpetuated with respect to photons just because one person it be so stated. It is getting to the point that if you read it on the net don't believe it unless it can be verified Art Mathematically, the Zo of free space is equal to the square root of the ratio of the permeability of free space (發) in henrys per meter (H/m) to the permittivity of free space (o) in farads per meter (F/m): Zo = (發/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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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. . . Forgive me for picking a nit here, but the front/back ratio is the ratio of radiated *field strength* or radiated *power density*, not radiated power. Strictly speaking, there is zero power radiated in any single direction. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
On 10 May, 16:55, wrote:
art wrote: 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 Example: Forward gain = 12db Reverse gain = 2db Front to back ratio = 12db/2db = 6; no units as they cancel. 5th grade mathematics. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! It would appear that we have some real experts in the group that would disagree with you on this, probably because they judge your performance on your postings and not on the extensive experiences. I suspect that some did not go along with your lengthy verbal launchings on the illigitimacy of adding a time metric to Gaussian law regardless of mathematical proof given, You were not able to pinpoint a mathematical error and relied on the word "can't" around which many of your utterings revolve. There was a fable written about a person who called "wolf" once to often who had nobody to blame but himself. If you make a habit of lying then the truth get's a hard time in obtaining belief. |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
art wrote:
On 10 May, 16:55, wrote: art wrote: 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 Example: Forward gain = 12db Reverse gain = 2db Front to back ratio = 12db/2db = 6; no units as they cancel. 5th grade mathematics. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! It would appear that we have some real experts in the group People beyond 5th grade math? I expect most posters are. snip rambling babble -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Electron ratio to form a radiation field
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 Frank, you got my attention when you pointed to the above link. I read it a few times and 377 ohms was refered to as Zo. I can't find any reference that states Zo is a ratio. Did you intend to point to another link that specifically points to Zo is a ratio? Surely you are not following in the steps of others where anything can be written right or wrong as long as it creats an augument or distress? You disapoint me! Some in this group are already thinking it is legal for a ratio to have units assigned because of the inference that the link say's it's so which is an untruth and you are perpetuating the spread of untruths. This is similar to another untruth that is being perpetuated with respect to photons just because one person it be so stated. It is getting to the point that if you read it on the net don't believe it unless it can be verified. I think you are confusing a posting by Cecil. Anyway, quoting from "Engineering Electromagnetics" by Nathan Ida, 2nd ed. p 743: "....the reference field is E (an arbitrary choice used in electromagnetics as a convention). Thus we define the ratio between Ex(z) and Hy(z) as eta = Ex(z)/Ey(z) = ...... sqrt(mu/epsilon) [ohms] This quantity is an impedance because the electric field intensity is given in [V/m] and the magnetic field intensity is given in [A/m]. The quantity eta is called the intrinsic impedance or wave impedance of the material.....". Frank |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com