"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
SNIP

So you don't even believe in ohm's law and the
principle of conservation of energy?

I can only say that Ohms law has worked correctly so far :)


Charlie.

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

"Waves of Average Power"
 

art wrote:
I haven't had a chance to read Feynman as yet unless it is hidden
somewhere on the net. Is it possible he is in error regarding photons
as something separate from electrons in flight?

A little logic should prove that electrons don't
leave the antenna. Assume that electrons radiate
from the antenna. If so, they would have to be
replaced. Replacing electrons would require a
*DC current conponent* imposed upon the RF. Does a
DC component exist? Don't most transmitters block
DC from reaching the antenna?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 28 Oct, 14:48, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 28 Oct, 02:46, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"art" wrote in message
news:1193540797.556158.313080@

Think of a photon being emitted instead of an electron.

Can't do that Cecil. I see radiation as an electron being blasted away
from the area that it was at rest with some electrons that are
blasted of but prevented from leaving the immediate vicinity or
equilibrium boundary returning to the host material. I cannot see
what a photon would add to this scenario since the released electrons
have the energy accorded to it by inductive energy instantaneous
energy.
I see no way how to include another energy packet to enhance this
energy exchange
i.e. blast that overcomes the electron inertia such that it escapes

The electron does not get "blasted" away. It merely goes to a higher
energy
level. Then when it returns to a lower energy level, the difference in
energy is emitted as a photon. The electron does not physically separate
from the atom of the antenna conductor material and radiate into free
space,
only the photonic energy is emitted . This all occurs at a frequency that
depends on the tuning of the RF circuit. The antenna conductor should be
geometrically sized to support the frequency of the emssions for maximum
radiation efficiency. Now, since the emission of photons is also an EM
wave
emission, the energy emitted has both an electrical and magnetic
compoment
associated with it. The energy has been converted from the "work" to
simply
move coulombs (electrons) over a potential voltage difference to "work"
needed to radiate photons (waves) into free space. Work is work and it
remains the same; what the work accomplishes is different. This part I
cannot explain very well since I have no idea how RF freqeuncy, or light
or
other EM waves can be of both a wave nature and particle (photon) nature,
but it is, and that is how the energy conversion works. The dual particle
natuire and wave nature of RF/light would almost appear to be "faith
based"
if it weren't for the large body of mathematics and other physics
evidence
that supports it.

Look, I happen to not fully disagree to what you and Cecil are saying.
An electron can be an active part of a substance indynamic form in
orbit around an atom.
You can also have a static form of electron which is at rest.
For radiation I am referring to the dislodfgement of a static
electron.
On the other hand I believe you are referring to a dynamic electron
in
orbit which constitutes part of that of which we see as a mass.

Hello Art, there are forms of radiation that involves the motion of free
electrons. One type is the mu-meson or "cosmic ray" which, by the way, is
more of a clump of electrons that travels at a rather high velocity, about
0.9c. There are beta rays (created in the betatron which was invented at my
beloved University of Wisconsin). But to make loose electrons travel in free
space at any appreciable velocity requires a tremendous amount of energy,

Where is the information that backs that statement as I need to check
that out?
A static particle (an electron) sits on a diagmatic surface with a
chemical stickynes.
All it takes to dislodge that particle from the surface is the amount
of energy
required to lift up one edge where its inertia is overcome. Thus the
energy to
propel that static particle appears to be minimul at best. When the
energy container of
inductance is released instantaneously then the applied voltage is
extremely high
and easily removes the static particle from the surface.
The above is a lot different from removing a dynamic electron in orbit
around a atom
which requires a tremendous force.
Again, please show me where you get your evidence of a "large" amount
of energy.
I would also add that a dynamic electron may well produce protons but
for a
static particle to produce a photon is just not on the cards as it has
minimul
to zero contained energy.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG







snip

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
RF can be expressed in terms of both waves and particles ...

Maybe it is neither until its probability
function collapses during a measurement?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

art wrote:
Where is the information that backs that statement as I need to check
that out?

Isn't it obvious that since RF waves travel at the speed
of light and it is impossible for an electron to travel
at the speed of light, that RF waves are made up of
something other than electrons?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 28 Oct, 17:27, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
Where is the information that backs that statement as I need to check
that out?

Isn't it obvious that since RF waves travel at the speed
of light and it is impossible for an electron to travel
at the speed of light, that RF waves are made up of
something other than electrons?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

We may be getting confused with nomenclature here.
I think most people have had to brush off from their clothing
electrostatic
particles. So I will call it a static particle without reference to an
electron.
That static particle can rest on a diagmatic material asd copper and
aluminum,
gold, silver etc is in that class. It is also this class of material
that
is used for antennas no less!
So static particles are allowed to rest on an antenna.
Now a antenna is a tank circuit where the distributed constants of
inductance
and capacitance are energy storage containers. Now is that hard to
understand?
And the L,C ratio to each other is very much a constant in antenna
mathematics.
Do we have anything else? Yes we have resistance. All in all just
three
distributed components
With a tank curcuit the energy containers release their energy in
pulsatic
form just like the voltage on the Tesla coil .
In the case of a radiator a spark is not produced as the power goes to
the
capacitor which later on will release its stored power which goes
back to
the inductance.
Now if resistance is not present then we would have a loss less system
right?
Unfortunately there is a litle resistance present but it will act for
some
time in pendulum style using very little energy.
When a pulse of energy is released down stream to the other end any
static
particles will be projected away from the surface where it acts as a
radio
communication carrier.
So call this static partical at rest on the radiator surface what you
want
it certainly does not produce a photon.
As there is no explanation available as to what radiation is I am
content to
stay
with what I have deduced from adding a time variAnce to Gauss's static
law
encompassed by an arbitary field which conformes with Maxwells laws as
used
to determine characteristics of a radiator via computor programs now
in existance.
Now getting back to electrons static forms ofcourse, what a
coincidence that we
make our antennas od a diagmatic material which by chance or
coincidence or
luck of the draw is the only type of material that will allow a
accumullation
of static particles upon its surface.
Now there are sonme other materials which will allow a small amount of
static
accumulation on the surface such as some types of steel e.t.c which
make
poor radiators.
Why? Because they are not fully populated with static particles or
what some
call free electons.
Now this explanation fits very well together so I consider it a
suitable
explanation of radiation in the absence of any other explanation.
FIND FAULT WITH IT IF YOU CAN AND LET ME KNOW SO I CAN AMMEND IT.
Good luck and best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 28 Oct, 20:03, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 28 Oct, 17:27, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
Where is the information that backs that statement as I need to check
that out?

Isn't it obvious that since RF waves travel at the speed
of light and it is impossible for an electron to travel
at the speed of light, that RF waves are made up of
something other than electrons?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

We may be getting confused with nomenclature here.
I think most people have had to brush off from their clothing
electrostatic
particles. So I will call it a static particle without reference to an
electron.
That static particle can rest on a diagmatic material asd copper and
aluminum,
gold, silver etc is in that class. It is also this class of material
that
is used for antennas no less!
So static particles are allowed to rest on an antenna.
Now a antenna is a tank circuit where the distributed constants of
inductance
and capacitance are energy storage containers. Now is that hard to
understand?
And the L,C ratio to each other is very much a constant in antenna
mathematics.
Do we have anything else? Yes we have resistance. All in all just
three
distributed components
With a tank curcuit the energy containers release their energy in
pulsatic
form just like the voltage on the Tesla coil .
In the case of a radiator a spark is not produced as the power goes to
the
capacitor which later on will release its stored power which goes
back to
the inductance.
Now if resistance is not present then we would have a loss less system
right?
Unfortunately there is a litle resistance present but it will act for
some
time in pendulum style using very little energy.
When a pulse of energy is released down stream to the other end any
static
particles will be projected away from the surface where it acts as a
radio
communication carrier.
So call this static partical at rest on the radiator surface what you
want
it certainly does not produce a photon.
As there is no explanation available as to what radiation is I am
content to
stay
with what I have deduced from adding a time variAnce to Gauss's static
law
encompassed by an arbitary field which conformes with Maxwells laws as
used
to determine characteristics of a radiator via computor programs now
in existance.
Now getting back to electrons static forms ofcourse, what a
coincidence that we
make our antennas od a diagmatic material which by chance or
coincidence or
luck of the draw is the only type of material that will allow a
accumullation
of static particles upon its surface.
Now there are sonme other materials which will allow a small amount of
static
accumulation on the surface such as some types of steel e.t.c which
make
poor radiators.
Why? Because they are not fully populated with static particles or
what some
call free electons.
Now this explanation fits very well together so I consider it a
suitable
explanation of radiation in the absence of any other explanation.
FIND FAULT WITH IT IF YOU CAN AND LET ME KNOW SO I CAN AMMEND IT.
Good luck and best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg

There are several faults but let me mention just one: You explain that a
static charge can exist on an antenna. In fact, that is true, especially in
the presence of moving air that tends to add/strip electrons to the surface
resulting in a net positive or negative static charge that can even damage
your radio in mobile operation if measures are not taken (not sure if + or -
but it doesn't make any difference). But all you have been referring to up
to now is the electric E-field. What about the magnetic field (H-field) that
is also present in the RF wave? With your radiating electrons theory you
attempt to cover the E-field in terms of static charges that are put into
motion and projected from the antenna. If so, how does a loop antenna work?
Do static magnets exist on the antenna surface also get put into motion and
get projected outwards at exact right angles to the electrons?

Well that is easy!
You can't have static magnetic particles resting on a diagmatic
material
since a diagmatic material is absent any form of hysterysis curve and
a static magnet(
what ever that may be) generates a hysterysis curve

I have to add
a smiley to this because I'm sure you know it is quite a preposterous
assertion but I am seriously only trying to respectfully question your
model.

Don't mind the questions but don't write a book on it until you get a
response

Please take note that Maxwells equations verify this model
I suggest you look up in the archives my research on Gauss
since you are new to the group before you next want to invalidate
Maxwell!!
Regards
Art


:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Waves of Average Power"
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 28 Oct, 17:27, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
Where is the information that backs that statement as I need to check
that out?

Isn't it obvious that since RF waves travel at the speed
of light and it is impossible for an electron to travel
at the speed of light, that RF waves are made up of
something other than electrons?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

We may be getting confused with nomenclature here.
I think most people have had to brush off from their clothing
electrostatic
particles. So I will call it a static particle without reference to an
electron.
That static particle can rest on a diagmatic material asd copper and
aluminum,
gold, silver etc is in that class. It is also this class of material
that
is used for antennas no less!
So static particles are allowed to rest on an antenna.
Now a antenna is a tank circuit where the distributed constants of
inductance
and capacitance are energy storage containers. Now is that hard to
understand?
And the L,C ratio to each other is very much a constant in antenna
mathematics.
Do we have anything else? Yes we have resistance. All in all just
three
distributed components
With a tank curcuit the energy containers release their energy in
pulsatic
form just like the voltage on the Tesla coil .
In the case of a radiator a spark is not produced as the power goes to
the
capacitor which later on will release its stored power which goes
back to
the inductance.
Now if resistance is not present then we would have a loss less system
right?
Unfortunately there is a litle resistance present but it will act for
some
time in pendulum style using very little energy.
When a pulse of energy is released down stream to the other end any
static
particles will be projected away from the surface where it acts as a
radio
communication carrier.
So call this static partical at rest on the radiator surface what you
want
it certainly does not produce a photon.
As there is no explanation available as to what radiation is I am
content to
stay
with what I have deduced from adding a time variAnce to Gauss's static
law
encompassed by an arbitary field which conformes with Maxwells laws as
used
to determine characteristics of a radiator via computor programs now
in existance.
Now getting back to electrons static forms ofcourse, what a
coincidence that we
make our antennas od a diagmatic material which by chance or
coincidence or
luck of the draw is the only type of material that will allow a
accumullation
of static particles upon its surface.
Now there are sonme other materials which will allow a small amount of
static
accumulation on the surface such as some types of steel e.t.c which
make
poor radiators.
Why? Because they are not fully populated with static particles or
what some
call free electons.
Now this explanation fits very well together so I consider it a
suitable
explanation of radiation in the absence of any other explanation.
FIND FAULT WITH IT IF YOU CAN AND LET ME KNOW SO I CAN AMMEND IT.
Good luck and best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg


ah, this explains a lot... Art is an aetherist... see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
the mysterious 'static particles' that aren't bound to the material and
carry the electromagnetic energy can only be the aether. since it is well
known how much energy is needed to free an electron from a metalic surface,
and as was pointed out that if it was really electrons that were leaving the
surface it would require a DC component in addition to the RF to replace
them or the antenna would become charged, it must be aether particles that
art is talking about. They would satisfy the massless speed of light
particles stuck on the surface and other crud that art is dreaming about in
his crude attempt to explain electromagnetics.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
This is where I plateau in terms of
physics comprehension; I am not able to tell the difference between a wave
and a particle, understanding as well that there may be none.

If you test expecting to find a wave, you will.
If you test expecting to find a particle, you will. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

art wrote:
So call this static particle at rest on the radiator surface
what you want - it certainly does not produce a photon.
FIND FAULT WITH IT IF YOU CAN AND LET ME KNOW SO I CAN AMMEND IT.

When a charged particle encounters an antenna, the
energy is transferred to the conductor causing a
photonic wave that travels at the speed of light
(VF) to the receiver and on to ground (if grounded).
Static charges on grounded conductors are immediately
discharged to ground. Most amateur antennas are
grounded through the transceiver chassis. Some are
not grounded but the theory has to work for the
grounded ones as well.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com