"Waves of Average Power"
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
... it can all be explained neatly by superposition. There's
no reason to make up any crackpot theories, or magical, mystical
stories. It was all understood long before you were born.

No one is making up "crackpot theories or magical
mystical stories". I am reporting the laws of physics
by physicists who understood them before the first man-
made RF antenna or transmission line ever existed. Some
people on this newsgroup are trying to sweep those laws
of optical physics under the rug and ignore them. I am
merely attempting to lift the rug and expose what has
been known since long before you were born.

What happens to the ExH joules/sec in two coherent
collinear EM waves that are superposed such that the
resultant wave contains ExH=0 joules/sec forever in
the original direction of travel? None of you "experts"
have ever answered that question. You guys have tried
your best to completely ignore the fact of physics that
EM waves contain energy and cannot exist without energy.
Some of you have gone so far as to assert that reflected
waves exist without energy and just slosh around in
violation of the laws of physics for EM waves. There is
your magical, mystical story but it is not coming from me.

The advice from the gurus here is to use the voltages in
the waves and completely ignore the necessary energy in
the waves along with the conservation of energy principle.
Ignore things that you can see with your own eyes? Now
*that* is your "crackpot theory".

Optical physicists who do not have the crutch of voltage
upon which to lean, understood the energy content of EM
waves a century ago. All they could measure was the
power density and as a result, the field of optics
understands EM waves while the field of RF remains
ignorant of such. As a result, we are fed old wives'
tales about reflected waves containing zero energy
and just "sloshing" around when there is nothing to
cause them to slosh.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 5 Nov, 04:57, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
... it can all be explained neatly by superposition. There's
no reason to make up any crackpot theories, or magical, mystical
stories. It was all understood long before you were born.

No one is making up "crackpot theories or magical
mystical stories". I am reporting the laws of physics
by physicists who understood them before the first man-
made RF antenna or transmission line ever existed. Some
people on this newsgroup are trying to sweep those laws
of optical physics under the rug and ignore them. I am
merely attempting to lift the rug and expose what has
been known since long before you were born.

What happens to the ExH joules/sec in two coherent
collinear EM waves that are superposed such that the
resultant wave contains ExH=0 joules/sec forever in
the original direction of travel? None of you "experts"
have ever answered that question. You guys have tried
your best to completely ignore the fact of physics that
EM waves contain energy and cannot exist without energy.
Some of you have gone so far as to assert that reflected
waves exist without energy and just slosh around in
violation of the laws of physics for EM waves. There is
your magical, mystical story but it is not coming from me.

The advice from the gurus here is to use the voltages in
the waves and completely ignore the necessary energy in
the waves along with the conservation of energy principle.
Ignore things that you can see with your own eyes? Now
*that* is your "crackpot theory".

Optical physicists who do not have the crutch of voltage
upon which to lean, understood the energy content of EM
waves a century ago. All they could measure was the
power density and as a result, the field of optics
understands EM waves while the field of RF remains
ignorant of such. As a result, we are fed old wives'
tales about reflected waves containing zero energy
and just "sloshing" around when there is nothing to
cause them to slosh.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

From a optical physicists stand point I can understand
your dilema but I still don't understand how it applies to antennas,
what problems it creats and how can we fix it.
Obviously there are very few people in ham radio, unless there are
walk overs from CB, who are sufficiently educated in your field and
would be very unlikely to delve into the mysteries of same unless
they could see the future, or want to combat the problems shown
today. A case in point is the wave versus particle theory, and it
is just a theory.I have found that there is little or no interest
in that at all in ham radio as it is a hobby and thus the notion
holds true that all is known. Fortunately there is a world of
science out there that pursue science for its interest regardless
where it leads but hams view the hobby of radio as a means to talk,
endlessly in some cases, about things that are already known and
to defend such notions. Thus the presence of somebody who wants
to delve into the unknown properties of radio communication is
obviously on the other side of the fence as ham radio goes.
Yes, I am like you who does not believe that all is known tho
lacking in education in the field that you are in. But the days
have gone where ham radio was populated by those interested in
science and/or do not posses the powers of logic required.
Frankly this newsgroup is for regurguration only and to argue
not about the pursuit of science but as a means to spend your
time in retirement, a fact that is reflected often in the
form of senior moments that occur so often.
Cecil, we can't win for losing if success can not be recognised
by ignorance. Your only avenue is to write a book that people
will then use as a datum and regurgitate "facts" that you
provide. That is the only way with respect to ham radio can
you project your self as an "expert", remember what is written
and be consistent with the responses given and jeer at those
who will not concurr
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG (uk)

"Waves of Average Power"
 

art wrote:
From a optical physicists stand point I can understand
your dilema but I still don't understand how it applies to antennas,

EM waves obey the same rules, no matter what the
frequency. Some people would have us believe that
RF waves don't obey the same rules as light waves,
that the ability to measure the voltage associated
with an EM wave somehow changes its nature - that
RF waves are capable of sloshing back and forth in
a transmission line at sub-light speeds - that some
RF waves are completely devoid of an ExH power density.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 5 Nov, 07:18, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
From a optical physicists stand point I can understand
your dilema but I still don't understand how it applies to antennas,

EM waves obey the same rules, no matter what the
frequency. Some people would have us believe that
RF waves don't obey the same rules as light waves,
that the ability to measure the voltage associated
with an EM wave somehow changes its nature - that
RF waves are capable of sloshing back and forth in
a transmission line at sub-light speeds - that some
RF waves are completely devoid of an ExH power density.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

You make a good point. Many scientists have tried to connect
chemical, electrical and mechanical laws into one since all possess
a quantised measure of energy. But this can be very difficult
if one believes that a electron can behave both as a particle and a
wave
when the definition of both of these words are not chiselled in stone.
Read "Secrets of the atom", a new unified field theory,
by Dr Weldon Vlasak for some new analysis of the day.
Should be of interest to you as it evolves around shell
energy as in electricity no less
Art

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On Nov 4, 3:08 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:

Do you agree that a series of ground radials for a vertical antenna is a
true "ground" in the sense that a 1/4 wave antenna radiator is "grounded"?
Or do you believe that the only true ground for a 1/4 wave antenna radiator
is true earth ground (or as close to that
as you can get).

If you are writing about the buried radials typically used by commercial AM
broadcast stations, then they provide a much better "ground" in terms of
conductivity than the earth itself. Without those buried radials, r-f
losses in the earth within ~1/2-wavelength of the vertical greatly reduce
the radiated fields it will produce, as those losses are in series with the
r-f current flowing on the vertical.

The radial system actually radiates as an antenna element and that gives
the perception that the radial system is acting
as true "ground" (but only at a specific frequency.

Whether buried or elevated, r-f currents flow in opposite directions on
opposing pairs of radials. So if all such pairs of radials are installed
orthogonal to the vertical radiator, the useful far-field radiation from the
radials themselves essentially is zero.
//

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On Nov 5, 4:57 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
... it can all be explained neatly by superposition. There's
no reason to make up any crackpot theories, or magical, mystical
stories. It was all understood long before you were born.

No one is making up "crackpot theories or magical
mystical stories". I am reporting the laws of physics
by physicists who understood them before the first man-
made RF antenna or transmission line ever existed. Some
people on this newsgroup are trying to sweep those laws
of optical physics under the rug and ignore them. I am
merely attempting to lift the rug and expose what has
been known since long before you were born.

What happens to the ExH joules/sec in two coherent
collinear EM waves that are superposed such that the
resultant wave contains ExH=0 joules/sec forever in
the original direction of travel? None of you "experts"
have ever answered that question. You guys have tried
your best to completely ignore the fact of physics that
EM waves contain energy and cannot exist without energy.
Some of you have gone so far as to assert that reflected
waves exist without energy and just slosh around in
violation of the laws of physics for EM waves. There is
your magical, mystical story but it is not coming from me.

The advice from the gurus here is to use the voltages in
the waves and completely ignore the necessary energy in
the waves along with the conservation of energy principle.
Ignore things that you can see with your own eyes? Now
*that* is your "crackpot theory".

Optical physicists who do not have the crutch of voltage
upon which to lean, understood the energy content of EM
waves a century ago. All they could measure was the
power density and as a result, the field of optics
understands EM waves while the field of RF remains
ignorant of such. As a result, we are fed old wives'
tales about reflected waves containing zero energy
and just "sloshing" around when there is nothing to
cause them to slosh.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gee, Cecil, I'm sorry you've so completely misunderstood what I've
posted on the subject. I've tried to be very clear about it, but I've
apparently failed with respect to communicating with you. I'm sorry
that's the way it is. Of course I don't consider myself an expert, so
perhaps I'm excused from your catch-phrase classification of others
who've accurately described the situation here.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

K7ITM wrote:
Gee, Cecil, I'm sorry you've so completely misunderstood what I've
posted on the subject.

Could you be a little clearer? Does a reflected EM
wave have an associated ExH power density? Does a
reflected wave obey the principles of conservation
of energy and momentum? Is there exactly the amount
of energy in a transmission line needed to support
the measured forward power and reflected power?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On Nov 5, 11:07 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Gee, Cecil, I'm sorry you've so completely misunderstood what I've
posted on the subject.

Could you be a little clearer?

No, I'm sorry, Cecil. I've tried, but I'm afraid I'm just inept at
communicating. I take all the blame for it. However, life's too
short to spend a lot of time worrying about it, and I need to get back
to calculating the even and odd mode impedances of some coupled line
structures now. I just hope I don't have too much trouble applying
the results to some real-world problems.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

K7ITM wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:07 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Could you be a little clearer?

No, I'm sorry, Cecil.

I'm sorry you trimmed out and ignored all the yes/no
questions that I posted. One wonders why you guys
refuse to answer simple yes/no questions. Here one
again:

Does a reflected wave possess energy proportional
to ExH, i.e. the cross product of the E-field and
the H-field?

Given the magical thinking on this newsgroup, it
is pretty obvious why you guys cannot afford to
answer that question.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

OK, the graphic is at http://www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.gif

It's a decent start, however you must remember that power doesn't
reflect or propagate. You can't add power algebraically, so you won't
be able to take phase into consideration (sort of crucial if you want
to show cancellation). You have to use a vector quantity. Once you
change to more sensible units, you can produce a sum at each
reflection and show how the total changes as a function of time.
Remember also that the front surface continues to be irradiated at
each t sub n, so the amplitude of the signal penetrating the front
surface will be different at each subsequent t sub n.

73, ac6xg