OK RRAA Group Let's get Real:

DC to daylight! Which end of the spectrum is most interesting?

There often seems to be disagreement, dare I say "rancourous", among the
denizens of RRAA on certain details of the dynamics of em waves and certain
wave phenomena, dare I say "reflections".

Most hams are practical folk, interested in phenomena that occur (only)
within our legally assigned frequency bands. A select few are interested in
what happens outside our legally assigned frequency bands, and at least one
of our RRAA bretheren often takes us on excursions all the way up to
"daylight" to make his points futher down the spectrum! i.e. He takes us
up into the nether regions of optical frequencies to make his points. (God
Bless "Hecht"!)

Throughout all of the ensuing discussion that we "lurkers" overview, I have
always been curious about what happens if we were to take or frequency
excursions to the other extreme.

I believe that we are legally allowed to radiate in the DC band!

Most of us RRAA'ers seem to accept the physical reality inherent in the
assertions of James Clerk Maxwell's (Actually Oliver Heavisides!) elegant
and widely celebrated simple set of four partial differential equations and
their auxilliary relations. Where is dear old Reg when we need him?

Most of us RRAS'ers alos seem to "know" that, at least at Radio Frequencies
(RF), there exist both guided and free space electromagnetic "waves", and
that during the "life" of such waves, the situation of the simultaneous
existence of both "incident" and "reflected" waves often occurs. We all
agree, because of "optical" excursions we have been taken on by our "ptical
frontiersman", that situation occurs whether or not those waves are "guided"
(by transmission lines, a.k.a waveguides) or "free".

Aside: We all seem to know that it is strictly the "acceleration" of
electric charges that causes the radiation of radio waves, or if you prefer,
the emission of photons. I believe that the extant wave versus particle
"paradox" is irrelant to my following comments, assertions and questions.
Also I believe that the dividing line between transient and steady state
phenomena may be considered to be insignificant and so considered to be
irrelevant as well.

Frequency, or spectrum, through the Supreme Force of the Universe's gift to
us of "The Sinudoids" is intimately related to circular motion.
Acceleration we know is the rate of change of velocity. In the steady state
at DC electric charges are moving at a constant velocity. Thus when moving
in a straight line at constant velocity there should be no "waves" launched
or radiated, no?

However, as mechanics or Engineers, we all understand the reality of
centrifugal force and centripial acceleration. Some of us may actually
recall Coriolis acceleration. [grin] I was in New Zealand last year and
indeed the water does go down the sink with the opposite circulation. The
water would not do that without the existence of the Coriolis Force. But I
digress!

The reality of electric charges is clearly accepted by all denizens of RRAA,
although some might argue about "holes" [grin].

Clearly then... even constant velocity steady state charges (DC) that
circulate at a constant linear and angular velocity around the guided
helical path of a solenoidally shaped conductor, otherwise known as a coil
or inductor, say for instance the ubiquitous loading coil of a Bug Catcher
whip, are subject to CENTRIPIAL ACCELERATION and must perforce emit photons,
no? Does a coil carrying DC radiate? If so how efficiently?

My point here is the assertion of the real existence of DC waves either
guided or free!

Q0: Is there electromagnetic radiation (are photons emitted) from a
solenoidal (helix) carrying DC because of the centripital acceleration of
the charges?

Q1: Do electromagnetic "waves" exist at DC, whether guided or free?

Q2: Can incident DC "waves", whether guided or free ever be "reflected"?

Q3: Can a VSWR be measured (at zero frequency) on a transmission
line/waveguide that supports DC?

Q4: Is the VSWR at DC related, in any way at all to the VSWR at higher
frequencies?

Pete, just plain crazy, none of this is reality!

Let's get practical then... most RRAA'ers seem to agree that a Bird Model 43
clearly measures indident and reflected waves. The generic name for a Bird
is "reflectometer". Bird's, being "real practical devices" do have
practical frequency range limitations and their accuracy and precision of
the measurement of actual reality falls off below and above their (rated)
the frequencies that define their rated bandwidth of operation. i.e. Bird's
are not "accurate" from DC to daylight! But if one had a "Perfect Bird" and
we could measure transmission line guided waves all the way down to DC.

Q4: If the Bird can't do it, is it even possible to construct a
reflectometer instrument that can measure reflected waves all the way down
to DC (zero frequency)? I have one here at home that I made myself. Where
can I buy one?

Q5: If waves do not exist at DC, then at what magic frequency, lets call
this frequency f(mgc), do waves cease to exist?

Q6: Below what magic frequency, lets call it f(mgc), do radiation and or
reflection phenomena stop?

Q7: What is the difference between a "conjugate match" and a "Zo-match" at
DC?

Food for thought, eh?

I miss dear old Reg!

Thoughts comments...

--
Pete k1po
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL

Peter O. Brackett wrote:
...
Most hams are practical folk, interested in phenomena that occur (only)
within our legally assigned frequency bands. A select few are interested in
what happens outside our legally assigned frequency bands, and at least one
of our RRAA bretheren often takes us on excursions all the way up to
"daylight" to make his points futher down the spectrum! i.e. He takes us
up into the nether regions of optical frequencies to make his points. (God
Bless "Hecht"!)
...

At least one nano-technology/expermental solar cell depends on very
minute "antenna" covering its' surface, the light waves/photons striking
those "antennas" causes a DC current to flow from the cell ...

I see no one interested in phenomenon "outside of our assigned bands"
(light and RF are the same phenomenon.)

Well, except for those attempting to communicate on a "DC Carrier."

JS

"Peter O. Brackett" wrote in message
ink.net...
OK RRAA Group Let's get Real:

DC to daylight! Which end of the spectrum is most interesting?

There often seems to be disagreement, dare I say "rancourous", among the
denizens of RRAA on certain details of the dynamics of em waves and
certain
wave phenomena, dare I say "reflections".

Most hams are practical folk, interested in phenomena that occur (only)
within our legally assigned frequency bands. A select few are interested
in
what happens outside our legally assigned frequency bands, and at least
one
of our RRAA bretheren often takes us on excursions all the way up to
"daylight" to make his points futher down the spectrum! i.e. He takes us
up into the nether regions of optical frequencies to make his points.
(God
Bless "Hecht"!)

Throughout all of the ensuing discussion that we "lurkers" overview, I
have
always been curious about what happens if we were to take or frequency
excursions to the other extreme.

I believe that we are legally allowed to radiate in the DC band!

Most of us RRAA'ers seem to accept the physical reality inherent in the
assertions of James Clerk Maxwell's (Actually Oliver Heavisides!) elegant
and widely celebrated simple set of four partial differential equations
and
their auxilliary relations. Where is dear old Reg when we need him?

Most of us RRAS'ers alos seem to "know" that, at least at Radio
Frequencies
(RF), there exist both guided and free space electromagnetic "waves", and
that during the "life" of such waves, the situation of the simultaneous
existence of both "incident" and "reflected" waves often occurs. We all
agree, because of "optical" excursions we have been taken on by our
"ptical
frontiersman", that situation occurs whether or not those waves are
"guided"
(by transmission lines, a.k.a waveguides) or "free".

Aside: We all seem to know that it is strictly the "acceleration" of
electric charges that causes the radiation of radio waves, or if you
prefer,
the emission of photons. I believe that the extant wave versus particle
"paradox" is irrelant to my following comments, assertions and questions.
Also I believe that the dividing line between transient and steady state
phenomena may be considered to be insignificant and so considered to be
irrelevant as well.

Frequency, or spectrum, through the Supreme Force of the Universe's gift
to
us of "The Sinudoids" is intimately related to circular motion.
Acceleration we know is the rate of change of velocity. In the steady
state
at DC electric charges are moving at a constant velocity. Thus when
moving
in a straight line at constant velocity there should be no "waves"
launched
or radiated, no?

However, as mechanics or Engineers, we all understand the reality of
centrifugal force and centripial acceleration. Some of us may actually
recall Coriolis acceleration. [grin] I was in New Zealand last year and
indeed the water does go down the sink with the opposite circulation. The
water would not do that without the existence of the Coriolis Force. But
I
digress!

The reality of electric charges is clearly accepted by all denizens of
RRAA,
although some might argue about "holes" [grin].

Clearly then... even constant velocity steady state charges (DC) that
circulate at a constant linear and angular velocity around the guided
helical path of a solenoidally shaped conductor, otherwise known as a
coil
or inductor, say for instance the ubiquitous loading coil of a Bug Catcher
whip, are subject to CENTRIPIAL ACCELERATION and must perforce emit
photons,
no? Does a coil carrying DC radiate? If so how efficiently?

My point here is the assertion of the real existence of DC waves either
guided or free!

Q0: Is there electromagnetic radiation (are photons emitted) from a
solenoidal (helix) carrying DC because of the centripital acceleration of
the charges?

No. The electrons are constrained within the winding of the solonoid. A
magnetic field is
formed by the movement of the electrons but this has nothing to do with
centripedal
acceleration of charges.

Q1: Do electromagnetic "waves" exist at DC, whether guided or free?

No. However there is not sharp cut off point. Any change in voltage or
current over a
period of time will generate an electromagnetic disturbance. The initial
inrush of electricity
when a circuit is first energised creates a detectable electromagnetic
pulse. When a circuit
is de-energised or switched of, a similar pulse is generated as voltage and
current decay.

Q2: Can incident DC "waves", whether guided or free ever be "reflected"?

DC is DC and once a constant current/voltage is established only a magnetic
field around
the conductors will exist.

Q3: Can a VSWR be measured (at zero frequency) on a transmission
line/waveguide that supports DC?

No. There can be no standing waves at DC for the reason stated above.

Q4: Is the VSWR at DC related, in any way at all to the VSWR at higher
frequencies?

As there can be no VSWR, this question is pointless.

Pete, just plain crazy, none of this is reality!

Let's get practical then... most RRAA'ers seem to agree that a Bird Model
43
clearly measures indident and reflected waves. The generic name for a
Bird
is "reflectometer". Bird's, being "real practical devices" do have
practical frequency range limitations and their accuracy and precision of
the measurement of actual reality falls off below and above their (rated)
the frequencies that define their rated bandwidth of operation. i.e.
Bird's
are not "accurate" from DC to daylight! But if one had a "Perfect Bird"
and
we could measure transmission line guided waves all the way down to DC.

Q4: If the Bird can't do it, is it even possible to construct a
reflectometer instrument that can measure reflected waves all the way down
to DC (zero frequency)? I have one here at home that I made myself.
Where
can I buy one?

Any repetitive change in voltage and frequency over any period could be
construed
as an alternating current (AC) and theoretically is capable of being coupled
to a
suitable antenna and radiated as an electromagnetic wave. Given the
components to
construct a measuring device with a long enough time constant it is possible
to
measure reflections along a conductor or feedline. DC is a theoretical
construct,
rather like the concept of absolute zero. You can get very close, but you
will never
ever have a truely DC voltage/current just as you can never attain absolute
zero, or
for that matter, accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light.

Q5: If waves do not exist at DC, then at what magic frequency, lets call
this frequency f(mgc), do waves cease to exist?

As stated above, DC doesn't really exist, other than as a theoretical
concept. The
voltage and current will always vary slightly in any practical circuit.

Q6: Below what magic frequency, lets call it f(mgc), do radiation and or
reflection phenomena stop?

Radiation and reflection phenomena do no stop. All electrical circuits
radiate some
energy as heat and electromagnetic pulses. These emissions may be below
measurable
limits but they exist none the less.

Q7: What is the difference between a "conjugate match" and a "Zo-match"
at
DC?

I have no idea.

Food for thought, eh?

I miss dear old Reg!

Thoughts comments...

--
Pete k1po
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL

All of the phenomena associated with electromagnetic waves and electron flow
can be
simulated in water tanks with supended particles in solution. When waves are
generated
at suitable frequencies, they travel along the tanks and matched stubs in
exactly the same
wave as electromagnetic theory predicts. Standing waves can be generated at
resonance
and these also behave as predicted. Examination of the particles in solution
using a laser
show that while waves propogate, individual particles move very slowly or
oscillate
around a fixed position. Again very similar to observed performance in
antennae and
feed lines. There is a tendency to look rather too deeply into some
electromagnetic
phenomena which although apparently strange, have parallels in other
branches of science.

Big antennas work better than small antennas at every frequency and provided
a decent
impedence match is achieved between the transceiver output and is impedence
of free
space (about 377 ohms) then maximum signals are broadcast and received.

The efficiency with which the impedence match can be achieved is really at
the crux of
all antenna theory.

My two pennies worth.

Mike G0ULI

On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:51:59 GMT, "Peter O. Brackett"
being supremely bored wrote:

Let's
among the denizens
Most hams
our legally assigned frequency bands.
A select few
our legally assigned frequency bands
takes us
takes us
we "lurkers"
we were to take
we are
Most of us
we need
Most of us
We all
we have
our "ptical
We all

Insecure, aren't "we?"

I believe that the extant wave versus particle
"paradox" is irrelant to my following comments, assertions and questions.

Rolling up the rug before it is snapped?

Also I believe that the dividing line between transient and steady state
phenomena may be considered to be insignificant and so considered to be
irrelevant as well.

A nice elimination of a demarcation, but it says nothing of which side
of the line you are standing. Are you on the steady state side
(which, of course has never existed), or the transient state side
(that is, the only one that has ever existed)? Be careful of your
choice, as history (woops, there goes a transient) will mock you! ;-)

Frequency, or spectrum, through the Supreme Force of the Universe's gift to
us of "The Sinudoids" is intimately related to circular motion.

Most intimate relations consist of back-and-forth.

Acceleration we know is the rate of change of velocity.

Faster - faster - FASTER!

In the steady state
at DC electric charges are moving at a constant velocity.

You are confusing charge with carrier.

Thus when moving
in a straight line at constant velocity there should be no "waves" launched
or radiated, no?

Well, are you afore it? or against it?

My point here is the assertion of the real existence of DC waves either
guided or free!

Edison would have beat Tesla to transferring power over the air if
that were so. Problem is wavelength, you need infinitely long
halfwave antennas - umm, WOW inspiration! That is exactly what
Edison had. He DID beat Tesla with transferring DC power over the air
when he supplied all his customers with antennas. AND they used
guided wave principles.

Q0: Is there electromagnetic radiation (are photons emitted) from a
solenoidal (helix) carrying DC because of the centripital acceleration of
the charges?

Of course.

Q1: Do electromagnetic "waves" exist at DC, whether guided or free?

That has been historically shown.

Q2: Can incident DC "waves", whether guided or free ever be "reflected"?

Certainly.

Q3: Can a VSWR be measured (at zero frequency) on a transmission
line/waveguide that supports DC?

Break the line and hold each half with your hands.

Q4: Is the VSWR at DC related, in any way at all to the VSWR at higher
frequencies?

You just said it, frequency. Transient! For shame.

Pete, just plain crazy, none of this is reality!

You don't believe your eyes? There's a career for you heading the CIA
(or Justice Department, or Homeland Scrutiny, or... choose one) under
the current administration.

most RRAA'ers seem

Sorry about that insecurity thingy.

Q4: If the Bird can't do it

Should this be Q5 or at least Q4.1.v.1?

Anyway, simply because you cannot afford that range slug doesn't mean
the Bird cannot do it.

Q5: If waves do not exist at DC, then at what magic frequency, lets call
this frequency f(mgc), do waves cease to exist?

Insecurity now is corrupting your confidence in the topic and
polluting it with transients. As you dismissed them above, we (using
the insecure form of I) might think you are suffering from optileptic
seizures.

Q6: Below what magic frequency, lets call it f(mgc), do radiation and or
reflection phenomena stop?

A Chebyshev filter might do it.

Q7: What is the difference between a "conjugate match" and a "Zo-match" at
DC?

No conjugal relations? No back-and-forth. You can't tell the
difference?

Food for thought, eh?

Slim Fast with half the calories.

I miss dear old Reg!

Thoughts comments...

I can't think of a thing to say.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard:

[snip]
Insecure, aren't "we?"
[snip]

Who me? Never!

[snip]
Rolling up the rug before it is snapped?
[snip]

I learned that from The Master... where is Reg when you need him?

[snip]
A nice elimination of a demarcation, but it says nothing of which side
of the line you are standing. Are you on the steady state side
(which, of course has never existed), or the transient state side
(that is, the only one that has ever existed)? Be careful of your
choice, as history (woops, there goes a transient) will mock you! ;-)
[snip]

OK, here's the deal...

Admittedly a thought experiment, if Cecil can do it then others are
entitled, no?

Let's say that I was sitting in The Restaurant at the End of the Universie
and in
the basement there, I hooked a solenoid and a resistor in series with a
battery at
exactly 1.0 sec after "The Big Bang".

Now the DC current has been flowing through that solenoid ever since. Then
in the
year of our lord 2007 I want to measure the radiation due to the centripital
acceleration
of the charges flowing round and round the turns in that solenoid.

Q1a: Is there any dectectable radiation?

If not, why then do we all seem to agree that charge acceleration causes
radiation?

Q2a: If so, what exactly is the frequency of that radiation?

Is this an example of a zero frequency [Or say a very nearly zero, e.g.
~1.0exp(-89) Hz] radio wave?

[snip]
Frequency, or spectrum, through the Supreme Force of the Universe's gift
to
us of "The Sinudoids" is intimately related to circular motion.

Most intimate relations consist of back-and-forth.
[snip]

I agree that both circular and reciprocal motion are among the wonderful
experiences of intimate relations, but...

Reciprocal motion is not circular motion!

[snip]
Acceleration we know is the rate of change of velocity.

Faster - faster - FASTER!
[snip]

Hmmm... You have a point Richard...

The human gestation period is ~ 280 days, if so long then I wonder why
speeding up towards the end of the act of insemination?

[snip]
In the steady state
at DC electric charges are moving at a constant velocity.

You are confusing charge with carrier.
[snip]

I may be, but that is irelevant to the question, for as you well know... the
mere motion of charge, no matter how carried, is all that is germain in the
celebrated Maxwell/Heaviside equations of classical electrodynamics.

[snip]
Thus when moving
in a straight line at constant velocity there should be no "waves"
launched
or radiated, no?

Well, are you afore it? or against it?
[snip]

I thought it was obvious, I'll explicitly go on record here...

With Maxwell and Heaviside, I believe that electromagnetic waves are
radiated into space by the acceleration of charge!

Period, end of story!


[snip]
My point here is the assertion of the real existence of DC waves either
guided or free!

Edison would have beat Tesla to transferring power over the air if
that were so. Problem is wavelength, you need infinitely long
halfwave antennas - umm, WOW inspiration! That is exactly what
Edison had. He DID beat Tesla with transferring DC power over the air
when he supplied all his customers with antennas. AND they used
guided wave principles.
[snip]

Phfffttt..

Extremely long dipoles are no problem for those of us who live in the
Restaurant
at the End of the Universe. My dipole extends from there back to epicenter
of
The Big Bang!

[snip]
Q0: Is there electromagnetic radiation (are photons emitted) from a
solenoidal (helix) carrying DC because of the centripital acceleration of
the charges?

Of course.
[snip]

Give that man a cigar! I'm glad you agree Richard.

[snip]
Q1: Do electromagnetic "waves" exist at DC, whether guided or free?

That has been historically shown.

Q2: Can incident DC "waves", whether guided or free ever be "reflected"?

Certainly.

Q3: Can a VSWR be measured (at zero frequency) on a transmission
line/waveguide that supports DC?
[snip]

Wow... you have figuratively wiped out the almost the whole left side of the
board on "Deal or No Deal".

I'm impressed!

[snip]
Break the line and hold each half with your hands.
[snip]

Crude but it works if you are only interested in one significant finger of
accuracy!

[snip]
Q4: Is the VSWR at DC related, in any way at all to the VSWR at higher
frequencies?

You just said it, frequency. Transient! For shame.

Pete, just plain crazy, none of this is reality!

You don't believe your eyes? There's a career for you heading the CIA
(or Justice Department, or Homeland Scrutiny, or... choose one) under
the current administration.
[snip]

That is a three letter agency, do such agencies serve Politics or Physics?
Maybe a four letter agency career would be more appropriate, no?

[snip]
most RRAA'ers seem

Sorry about that insecurity thingy.
[snip]

I suffer from many afflictions, and they grow more numerous as I gracefully
age,
but... with the invention of that wonderful blue pill by Pfizer, I now find
that
insecurity is no longer among those afflictions! [grin]

[snip]
Q4: If the Bird can't do it

Should this be Q5 or at least Q4.1.v.1?
[snip]

Oops... Now I've gone and done it...

Thanks for pointing that out, I now see that I've abused the traditional
protocols
observed by Internauts, USENET convention suggests only one rhetorical
question
per posting!

Mea culpa!

[snip]
Anyway, simply because you cannot afford that range slug doesn't mean
the Bird cannot do it.
[snip]

Bird now sells range slugs that cover the band [1.0E-98Hz - 1.0E-99 Hz]?

[snip]
Q5: If waves do not exist at DC, then at what magic frequency, lets call
this frequency f(mgc), do waves cease to exist?

Insecurity now is corrupting your confidence in the topic and
polluting it with transients. As you dismissed them above, we (using
the insecure form of I) might think you are suffering from optileptic
seizures.
[snip]

I believe that f(mgc) is exactly zero!

Reflections will be encountered and can be measured at DC!

The question is said Humpty Dumpty, "What is the physical interpertation
of "conjugate match" and "image match" [That's Zo-match for you Zo
affecianados!] at DC.

[snip]
Q6: Below what magic frequency, lets call it f(mgc), do radiation and or
reflection phenomena stop?

A Chebyshev filter might do it.
[snip]

Now you are being silly, the frequency of ripples in the passband of a
Tchebychev
filter [measured in cycles per Hz!] is non-linear and irrelevant to the
present discussion.

[snip]
Q7: What is the difference between a "conjugate match" and a "Zo-match"
at
DC?

No conjugal relations? No back-and-forth. You can't tell the
difference?
[snip]

Oh... Now your leg is within the reach of the jaws of the trap, if Reg were
with us
he would trigger it at the next posting! But then Reg was really just a
teddybear!

[snip]
Food for thought, eh?

Slim Fast with half the calories.
[snip]

Slim Fast is an expensive way to not get the good stuff!

Calories = Zero, Carbohydrates = Zero, Fats = Zero

Photons... priceless!

[snip]
I miss dear old Reg!

Thoughts comments...

I can't think of a thing to say.
[snip]

But not for long!

This is The Cottonmouth, Ya'll come back... [grin]

[snip]
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
[snip]

Thanks for the repartee Richard, you are a gem!

--
Pete k1po
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL
Andrea is outta sight, no hurricanes yet on this beach...

On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:58:59 GMT, "Peter O. Brackett"
wrote:


Q1a: Is there any dectectable radiation?

With your misspell, I almost read that as delectable.

Would certifiably ordinary normal RF spectrum be detectable? It
doesn't even have to meet any spectrum limitations (being at either
end of the extremes) to make that equivocal, why would DC radiation be
any different?

However, there are considerations that are specific to the wavelength
that in a normal or even extra-normal situation would still offer a
simple NO.

It would not be detectable for all the same reasons as the pedestrian
examples: Q, Energy, and S+N/N. DC suffers tremendously for every
criteria.

Energy would be well below the FemtoKelvin range.
S+N/N would be swamped from any of a number of noise sources.
Enough Q would be impossible to obtain to distinguish DC from
GigaMeter wavelength AC sources.

If not, why then do we all seem to agree that charge acceleration causes
radiation?

It's an hackneyed cliché meant to sooth Mensa candidates and their
sponsors.

Q2a: If so, what exactly is the frequency of that radiation?

0

Is this an example of a zero frequency [Or say a very nearly zero, e.g.
~1.0exp(-89) Hz] radio wave?

You are being insecure again.

[snip]
In the steady state
at DC electric charges are moving at a constant velocity.

You are confusing charge with carrier.
[snip]

I may be, but that is irelevant to the question, for as you well know... the
mere motion of charge, no matter how carried, is all that is germain in the
celebrated Maxwell/Heaviside equations of classical electrodynamics.

Quite the contrary. A carrier always moves charge, but a charge does
not always move a carrier. This is the difference between inductance
and capacitance (which most folks, materialists, think resides
specifically in the coil or the plate).

DC does NOT always involve moving charge or carriers. You defined it
yourself, is your insecurity doubting the initial condition?

One of the most frequent errors in this group is shifting frames of
reference and then trying to convince everyone it isn't a shell game
they are trying to pull.

[snip]
Thus when moving
in a straight line at constant velocity there should be no "waves"
launched
or radiated, no?

Well, are you afore it? or against it?
[snip]

I thought it was obvious, I'll explicitly go on record here...

With Maxwell and Heaviside, I believe that electromagnetic waves are
radiated into space by the acceleration of charge!

Well, there's a brave and bold step forward.

Period, end of story!

Dubious emphasis. Weren't you already convincing with the first
exclamation?


[snip]
My point here is the assertion of the real existence of DC waves either
guided or free!

Edison would have beat Tesla to transferring power over the air if
that were so. Problem is wavelength, you need infinitely long
halfwave antennas - umm, WOW inspiration! That is exactly what
Edison had. He DID beat Tesla with transferring DC power over the air
when he supplied all his customers with antennas. AND they used
guided wave principles.
[snip]

Phfffttt..

Extremely long dipoles are no problem for those of us who live in the
Restaurant
at the End of the Universe. My dipole extends from there back to epicenter
of
The Big Bang!

Edison was lucky that his subscriber's dipoles all interfered
(physically) with overlapping elements (early linear loading).

Tesla's RF work at transmitting power in Colorado Springs proved he
was oxygen deprived at that elevation.

Bird now sells range slugs that cover the band [1.0E-98Hz - 1.0E-99 Hz]?

I didn't say they offered it, I said that you couldn't afford it.

The question is said Humpty Dumpty, "What is the physical interpertation
of "conjugate match" and "image match" [That's Zo-match for you Zo
affecianados!] at DC.

How do you obtain an infinite reactance to fulfill conjugation?

[snip]
Q6: Below what magic frequency, lets call it f(mgc), do radiation and or
reflection phenomena stop?

A Chebyshev filter might do it.
[snip]

Now you are being silly, the frequency of ripples in the passband of a
Tchebychev
filter [measured in cycles per Hz!] is non-linear and irrelevant to the
present discussion.

The ripples are only in pass-band. Skirt will eventually take care of
DC (after-all there is only one frequency to stop).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:51:59 GMT, "Peter O. Brackett"
being supremely bored wrote:


Let's
among the denizens
Most hams
our legally assigned frequency bands.
A select few
our legally assigned frequency bands
takes us
takes us
we "lurkers"
we were to take
we are
Most of us
we need
Most of us
We all
we have
our "ptical
We all


Insecure, aren't "we?"


I believe that the extant wave versus particle
"paradox" is irrelant to my following comments, assertions and questions.


Rolling up the rug before it is snapped?


Also I believe that the dividing line between transient and steady state
phenomena may be considered to be insignificant and so considered to be
irrelevant as well.


A nice elimination of a demarcation, but it says nothing of which side
of the line you are standing. Are you on the steady state side
(which, of course has never existed), or the transient state side
(that is, the only one that has ever existed)? Be careful of your
choice, as history (woops, there goes a transient) will mock you! ;-)


Frequency, or spectrum, through the Supreme Force of the Universe's gift to
us of "The Sinudoids" is intimately related to circular motion.


Most intimate relations consist of back-and-forth.


Acceleration we know is the rate of change of velocity.


Faster - faster - FASTER!


In the steady state
at DC electric charges are moving at a constant velocity.


You are confusing charge with carrier.


Thus when moving
in a straight line at constant velocity there should be no "waves" launched
or radiated, no?


Well, are you afore it? or against it?


My point here is the assertion of the real existence of DC waves either
guided or free!


Edison would have beat Tesla to transferring power over the air if
that were so. Problem is wavelength, you need infinitely long
halfwave antennas - umm, WOW inspiration! That is exactly what
Edison had. He DID beat Tesla with transferring DC power over the air
when he supplied all his customers with antennas. AND they used
guided wave principles.


Q0: Is there electromagnetic radiation (are photons emitted) from a
solenoidal (helix) carrying DC because of the centripital acceleration of
the charges?


Of course.


Q1: Do electromagnetic "waves" exist at DC, whether guided or free?


That has been historically shown.


Q2: Can incident DC "waves", whether guided or free ever be "reflected"?


Certainly.


Q3: Can a VSWR be measured (at zero frequency) on a transmission
line/waveguide that supports DC?


Break the line and hold each half with your hands.


Q4: Is the VSWR at DC related, in any way at all to the VSWR at higher
frequencies?


You just said it, frequency. Transient! For shame.


Pete, just plain crazy, none of this is reality!


You don't believe your eyes? There's a career for you heading the CIA
(or Justice Department, or Homeland Scrutiny, or... choose one) under
the current administration.


most RRAA'ers seem


Sorry about that insecurity thingy.


Q4: If the Bird can't do it


Should this be Q5 or at least Q4.1.v.1?

Anyway, simply because you cannot afford that range slug doesn't mean
the Bird cannot do it.


Q5: If waves do not exist at DC, then at what magic frequency, lets call
this frequency f(mgc), do waves cease to exist?


Insecurity now is corrupting your confidence in the topic and
polluting it with transients. As you dismissed them above, we (using
the insecure form of I) might think you are suffering from optileptic
seizures.


Q6: Below what magic frequency, lets call it f(mgc), do radiation and or
reflection phenomena stop?


A Chebyshev filter might do it.


Q7: What is the difference between a "conjugate match" and a "Zo-match" at
DC?


No conjugal relations? No back-and-forth. You can't tell the
difference?


Food for thought, eh?


Slim Fast with half the calories.


I miss dear old Reg!

Thoughts comments...


I can't think of a thing to say.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Now that's more like it.

Although I'm not sure how you make a Chebyshev with a cutoff right at DC.

tom
K0TAR

"Peter O. Brackett" wrote in message
ink.net...
OK RRAA Group Let's get Real:

DC to daylight! Which end of the spectrum is most interesting?

I have a device which uses dc (batteries)
circulates the current through coils (in the flashlight bulb)
and radiate electromagnetic radiation (Light.).
But working skip is kinda ruff. [hehe]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 00:06:04 -0400, "Hal Rosser"
wrote:


"Peter O. Brackett" wrote in message
link.net...
OK RRAA Group Let's get Real:

DC to daylight! Which end of the spectrum is most interesting?

I have a device which uses dc (batteries)
circulates the current through coils (in the flashlight bulb)
and radiate electromagnetic radiation (Light.).
But working skip is kinda ruff. [hehe]

Hi Hal,

Move near a lake (especially on a calm night). That should help
propagation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In article . net, "Peter
O. Brackett" wrote:

Most of us RRAA'ers seem to accept the physical reality inherent in the
assertions of James Clerk Maxwell's (Actually Oliver Heavisides!) elegant
and widely celebrated simple set of four partial differential equations and
their auxilliary relations.

Hello, and "assertions" as you put have been verified time and again
through experiment. It was Maxwell, not Heaviside, that quantified the
relationship of electric and magnetic fields in his 1873 treatise on
electricity and magnetism. In doing so, Maxwell tied together the
experimental results of Coulomb, Volta, Oersted, Ampere, Faraday, Henry
and Gauss. The four Maxwell equations, the Lorentz force law and 3
subsidiary relations (characterizing the medium) constitute the basic laws
of electromagnetic theory.

Many of your questions and statements are not supported by EM theory and
by extension, would not be verifiable via experiment. As I implied in an
earlier thread, you don't have to understand vector calculus and Maxwell's
equations to enjoy ham radio. However, just because one can use the ARRL
handbooks to get up on the air does confer the required information to
design say, an arbitrary antenna with specified electrical
characteristics. This is why we have engineers who, like it or not, move
modern society forward and provide us with those technologies that most of
us daily take for granted.

If you really want a more in-depth understanding (beyond the
technical/hobby level), and are not an EE by profession, I would suggest
auditing an undergrad EE course on the subject. Be advised though, if you
are weak in applied mathematics (primarily calculus) you may be in for a
bumpy ride. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337