"Waves of Average Power"
 

This thread is started to allow anyone who believes
in "waves of average power" to say so and explain
why they believe such.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
This thread is started to allow anyone who believes
in "waves of average power" to say so and explain
why they believe such.

Thanks but in regards to radio I don't really go in for belief. I
realise that you and one or two others have a faith based approach
to antennas but I prefer to make them, measure them and then work
with them.

Thanks though :)


charlie.

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

"Waves of Average Power"
 

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in
:

My MFJ tuner has a scale called "Average Power", along with "PEP".
Gosh, if my MFJ tuner has it on the dial, it exists! :-))

Well, you would believe anything.

Some MFJ tuners that have a PEP switch do not read PEP reasonably
accurately on speech. Some of them that don't work (eg 949E) have a place
on the board for the transistor amplifier that is incorporated in other
models, and they can be fixed by adding the 10 cent transistor and one or
two other parts... but it is a huge job to get the PCB out of the tuner
to do the work.

The 'Average Power' reading might be reasonably accurate on an
unmodulated carrier, but it is certainly not on a complex waveform like
speech, and is another example of MFJ's labelling. In the so-called
'average power' mode, the circuit is a half wave peak responding RF
detector with a short (wrt speech) decay time constant driving a
D'Arsonval meter movement which responds to the average current where the
current is proportional to square root of power under constant carrier.

The BS in the 'average power' story is revealed by measuring the average
power of a Morse transmitter sending continuous dits with 50% duty
cycle... the 'average power' reading instruments are unlikely to read 50%
of the key down power, and the reading is likely to vary significantly
with dit speed.

A similar experiment will reveal the failure of some of the MFJ PEP power
meters to correctly indicate PEP on the Morse waveform.

Owen

"Waves of Average Power"
 

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in
:

I guess the joke with smiley symbol was either lost on you,

You are a funny fellow... plonk.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
This thread is started to allow anyone who believes
in "waves of average power" to say so and explain
why they believe such.

My MFJ tuner has a scale called "Average Power", along with "PEP". Gosh, if
my MFJ tuner has it on the dial, it exists! :-))

The average power is the joules passing a fixed
point in one second. It is the joules that are
flowing, not the watts.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

charlie wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
This thread is started to allow anyone who believes
in "waves of average power" to say so and explain
why they believe such.

Thanks but in regards to radio I don't really go in for belief.

So you don't even believe in ohm's law and the
principle of conservation of energy?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
This thread is started to allow anyone who believes
in "waves of average power" to say so and explain
why they believe such.

My MFJ tuner has a scale called "Average Power", along with "PEP". Gosh,
if my MFJ tuner has it on the dial, it exists! :-))

The average power is the joules passing a fixed
point in one second. It is the joules that are
flowing, not the watts.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

its the electrons that are flowing... everything else is a figment of your
slide rule.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Dave wrote:
its the electrons that are flowing... everything else is a figment of your
slide rule.

EM waves move at the speed of light - electrons don't.
The flowing energy in an EM wave is photonic.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 27 Oct, 06:23, Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:
its the electrons that are flowing... everything else is a figment of your
slide rule.

EM waves move at the speed of light - electrons don't.
The flowing energy in an EM wave is photonic.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
I don't want to argue the point but as you know
I consider radio radiator to be an electron accellerator
ie a tank circuit using a full wave (slow wave) length
inductance with a very low capacitance (LC ratio).
It is well known that the electron in a accellerator
aproaches the speed of sound.
The cloud of accellerated particles or electrons
in this case is non polarized which allowes for a
tumbling straight line trajectory.
Now some will be angry accusing me of putting out
false information again or flaunting comedic writing again
but I am being serious

Is the above in conflict with your statement?

Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG

"Waves of Average Power"
 

art wrote:
It is well known that the electron in a accellerator
aproaches the speed of sound.

Speed of sound? That's much too fast for free
electrons in a wire conductor.

Is the above in conflict with your statement?

In DC circuits, electrons flow at speeds that can
be expressed in cm/min. In RF circuits they hardly
have time to move at all in one direction before
they have to start moving in the other direction.

It is the photons released by energy-rich electrons
that flow at the speed of light. The EM wave energy
is associated with those photons.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 27 Oct, 09:58, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
It is well known that the electron in a accellerator
aproaches the speed of sound.

Speed of sound? That's much too fast for free
electrons in a wire conductor.

Free electrons accellerate from the SURFACE of a wire radiator
so are you saying that it produces photons that move at the speed of
light?
If so how is the accelleration vector imparted to the photon that then
gives
it a further increase in accelleration.
I was thinking that the electron travelled in a straight line until
it was able to find a material surface that is willing or able to
accept a free electron before it decays such as a diamagnetic material
I am travelling in murky waters here so any guidance would be helpfull
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG




Is the above in conflict with your statement?

In DC circuits, electrons flow at speeds that can
be expressed in cm/min. In RF circuits they hardly
have time to move at all in one direction before
they have to start moving in the other direction.

It is the photons released by energy-rich electrons
that flow at the speed of light. The EM wave energy
is associated with those photons.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 27 Oct, 10:50, art wrote:
On 27 Oct, 09:58, Cecil Moore wrote:

art wrote:
It is well known that the electron in a accellerator
aproaches the speed of sound.

Speed of sound? That's much too fast for free
electrons in a wire conductor.

Free electrons accellerate from the SURFACE of a wire radiator
so are you saying that it produces photons that move at the speed of
light?
If so how is the accelleration vector imparted to the photon that then
gives
it a further increase in accelleration.
I was thinking that the electron travelled in a straight line until
it was able to find a material surface that is willing or able to
accept a free electron before it decays such as a diamagnetic material
I am travelling in murky waters here so any guidance would be helpfull
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG





Is the above in conflict with your statement?

In DC circuits, electrons flow at speeds that can
be expressed in cm/min. In RF circuits they hardly
have time to move at all in one direction before
they have to start moving in the other direction.

It is the photons released by energy-rich electrons
that flow at the speed of light. The EM wave energy
is associated with those photons.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry about the "sound" comment. While typing I was
also thinking of ten metres in the old days where
one could hear the sound of a around the world type propagation
Regards
Art

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
This thread is started to allow anyone who believes
in "waves of average power" to say so and explain
why they believe such.

My MFJ tuner has a scale called "Average Power", along with "PEP".
Gosh, if my MFJ tuner has it on the dial, it exists! :-))

The average power is the joules passing a fixed
point in one second. It is the joules that are
flowing, not the watts.

You've finally written something so stupid that it's
beyond replying to.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Waves of Average Power"
 

art wrote:
Free electrons accelerate from the SURFACE of a wire radiator
so are you saying that it produces photons that move at the speed of
light?

When energy is imparted to an electron, if nothing
changed, it would accelerate. But the electron, instead
of accelerating appreciably, gives up the extra energy
in the form of a photon. Quoting Feynman in "QED":

So now, I present you the three basic actions, from which
all the phenomena of light (RF) and electrons arise.
- Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
- Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
- Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon.

Electrons have a rest mass and like all other rest masses
not equal to zero cannot travel at the speed of light. The
particle accelerators that accelerate electrons to near the
speed of light require a lot of power.

If so how is the acceleration vector imparted to the photon that then
gives it a further increase in acceleration.

Electrons emit photons which are traveling at the speed
of light. Photons can travel at no other speed although
the VF of the medium affects the absolute speed.

I was thinking that the electron traveled in a straight line until
it was able to find a material surface that is willing or able to
accept a free electron before it decays such as a diamagnetic material

At RF frequencies, the movement of electrons is more like
a vibration than like a travel. They are essentially
vibrating within a small volume while absorbing and emitting
photons. And of course, the uncertainty principle applies.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
You've finally written something so stupid that it's
beyond replying to.

Finally, a reply with some technical content - NOT!
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 27 Oct, 18:36, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
Free electrons accelerate from the SURFACE of a wire radiator
so are you saying that it produces photons that move at the speed of
light?

When energy is imparted to an electron, if nothing
changed, it would accelerate. But the electron, instead
of accelerating appreciably, gives up the extra energy
in the form of a photon. Quoting Feynman in "QED":

So now, I present you the three basic actions, from which
all the phenomena of light (RF) and electrons arise.
- Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
- Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
- Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon.

Electrons have a rest mass and like all other rest masses
not equal to zero cannot travel at the speed of light. The
particle accelerators that accelerate electrons to near the
speed of light require a lot of power.

If so how is the acceleration vector imparted to the photon that then
gives it a further increase in acceleration.

Electrons emit photons which are traveling at the speed
of light. Photons can travel at no other speed although
the VF of the medium affects the absolute speed.

I was thinking that the electron traveled in a straight line until
it was able to find a material surface that is willing or able to
accept a free electron before it decays such as a diamagnetic material

At RF frequencies, the movement of electrons is more like
a vibration than like a travel. They are essentially
vibrating within a small volume while absorbing and emitting
photons. And of course, the uncertainty principle applies.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I have to read up on things a bit more because if a free
electron resides on the surface of a radiator and is
blasted off that surface then it has mass.
It then cannot settle until it finds a surface that will accept it
which must be a similar material that it was blasted off from
i.e. one that will accept free electrons.
So frankly I am not educated enough to understand the nature of
photons
unless it consists of a field created by the accelerated particle
thus it would be better for me to retire gracefully.
Appreciated your responses
Regards
Art
I think I am out of my depth here Cecil

"Waves of Average Power"
 

art wrote:
I have to read up on things a bit more because if a free
electron resides on the surface of a radiator and is
blasted off that surface then it has mass.

Think of a photon being emitted instead of an electron.

It then cannot settle until it finds a surface that will accept it
which must be a similar material that it was blasted off from
i.e. one that will accept free electrons.

Think of a photon being absorbed by an electron
or radiated into space.

I think I am out of my depth here Cecil

Quantum Electro Dynamics has revolutionized our
understanding of fields and waves which are digital
(quantized) rather than analog. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 27 Oct, 19:25, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
I have to read up on things a bit more because if a free
electron resides on the surface of a radiator and is
blasted off that surface then it has mass.

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

As I stated earlier I am obviously out of my depth by thinking
contrary to those educated in the field
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?
Best regards
Art


It then cannot settle until it finds a surface that will accept it
which must be a similar material that it was blasted off from
i.e. one that will accept free electrons.

Think of a photon being absorbed by an electron
or radiated into space.

I think I am out of my depth here Cecil

Quantum Electro Dynamics has revolutionized our
understanding of fields and waves which are digital
(quantized) rather than analog. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

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.
Art

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Will I be able to communicate with anybody else if I just hook up an
antenna to my transceiver and talk away?

Scott
N0EDV


Jim Higgins wrote:

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:58:21 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:


art wrote:

It is well known that the electron in a accellerator
aproaches the speed of sound.

Speed of sound? That's much too fast for free
electrons in a wire conductor.


Is the above in conflict with your statement?

In DC circuits, electrons flow at speeds that can
be expressed in cm/min. In RF circuits they hardly
have time to move at all in one direction before
they have to start moving in the other direction.


The RF portion of the above statement is a bit misleading. Electrons
move (motion due to impressed EMF as opposed to Fermi motion) in
response to an applied EMF at a speed proportional to current density
regardless of the frequency of the applied EMF.

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

"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

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Jimmie D wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
This thread is started to allow anyone who believes
in "waves of average power" to say so and explain
why they believe such.

Couldnt that be considered an oxymoron.

The word "believe" seems to have some religious
connotation so please replace "believe" with
the word "support" above. I didn't think anyone
supported the concept of "Waves of average power"
but apparently I was wrong. I personally support
the concept of RF energy waves associated with
ExB RMS watts just as most technical textbooks do.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Jimmie D wrote:
If Art was correct you could generate RF just by passing DC through a 1
wavelength loop. Gee wouldnt that make building a transmitter easy.

It would also mean that electrons are flowing into
the antenna and not returning to the source through
the transmission line.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
ExB RMS watts just as most technical textbooks do.

Sorry, should have been "RMS ExB = watts".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 29 Oct, 04:19, "Dave" 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

ah, this explains a lot... Art is an aetherist... seehttp://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,

Get your mind back to the physics mode. Consider the basicvs infolved
with a field
in equilibrium as in Gauss's ,law of statics.
This method to explain things is used by physicists every day
In a short moment in time a DC pilse enters the field which breaks the
internal equilibrium where the boundary has a rapid change in contour
and fractures.
The DC blast removes the surface particles and in this moment where
equilibrium does not exist the static particles are projected beyond
the boundary before the boundary shape
is repaired. Have you got your mind in the thinking mode yet?Now what
does the blast consist of when energy is released nfrom a capacitor
bearing in mind that the capacitor plates are made of a diagmatic
material? Remember that for this method of deduction all "flux" must
pass thru the field so what is it that is stored on the surface plates
on the capacitor? Sice some particles are ejected from the field it
must bve the same type particles that leave a capacitor where some
replace those that are ejected.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG










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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 29 Oct, 04:56, Cecil Moore wrote:
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

Cecil
The Masters did not have computors so they tried deduction removing
all that did not meet empirical or mathematical tests before they
expoused them to the World.
In this case they meet empirical tests, they meet mathematical tests,
they abide by Maxwells laws and for those who demand more get an
optimiser computor program and without tying it to a planar mode the
antenna program will come back automatically with a non planar mode of
radiator, a radiator of any size or shape or elevation that is in a
state of equilibrium in singular or group form. The Masters found that
when working along side nature you have to walk in natures shoes but
never, never mess with mother nature.
Cecil, people have stopped calling me a blithering idiot! Are they
beginning to think that on this newsgroup I operate under a psuedo
name then who am I? Should we test QST and ask them to publish this
instead of mobile antenna guff? Where is the person who can clinically
disembowel this model and what University does he teach in? Is the
World correct in allowing computors to machinate the numbers
mathematically first and then allowing scientists to collect those
that look O.K. and then play with them, or did the Masters have the
right idea of turning that approach around for gaining advances?
Your friend
Art

"Waves of Average Power"
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
The DC blast removes the surface particles and in this moment where
equilibrium does not exist the static particles are projected beyond
the boundary before the boundary shape
is repaired. Have you got your mind in the thinking mode yet?Now what
does the blast consist of when energy is released nfrom a capacitor
bearing in mind that the capacitor plates are made of a diagmatic
material? Remember that for this method of deduction all "flux" must
pass thru the field so what is it that is stored on the surface plates
on the capacitor? Sice some particles are ejected from the field it
must bve the same type particles that leave a capacitor where some
replace those that are ejected.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

ah, a blast removes the particles... you know how much of a 'blast' is
required to create corona on a wire the way you describe? what electric
field strength at the surface of a conductor is required to create that type
of breakdown in air? how much in vaccuum? define your terms and show all
work or you will lose points on the final grade.

what happens if i build a capacitor with ferromagnetic material??? does it
not work? what about if i use paramagnetic material?

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 29 Oct, 08:08, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...

The DC blast removes the surface particles and in this moment where
equilibrium does not exist the static particles are projected beyond
the boundary before the boundary shape
is repaired. Have you got your mind in the thinking mode yet?Now what
does the blast consist of when energy is released nfrom a capacitor
bearing in mind that the capacitor plates are made of a diagmatic
material? Remember that for this method of deduction all "flux" must
pass thru the field so what is it that is stored on the surface plates
on the capacitor? Sice some particles are ejected from the field it
must bve the same type particles that leave a capacitor where some
replace those that are ejected.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

ah, a blast removes the particles... you know how much of a 'blast' is
required to create corona on a wire the way you describe? what electric
field strength at the surface of a conductor is required to create that type
of breakdown in air?

A battery, a flyback transformer etc etc
how much in vaccuum?

Does not require a vacuum. Remember the old days of spark plug
transmissions?

define your terms and show all
work or you will lose points on the final grade.

what happens if i build a capacitor with ferromagnetic material??? does it
not work?

No

what about if I use paramagnetic material?

Yes

David turn your attention to antenna computor programs
When made they made assumptions which is a no, no with laws.
The same computor program produces verification of the model!
So why not think about whether computor programs are incorrectly based
or Maxwells laws has some errors. Start your investigation from a
rock
hard surface and not sand which has a habit of drifting in time and
determine
or verify again Maxwells laws and computor programming basics.
Is science back to the poll taking days for verification?
Stop floundaring and get down to serious thinking since memorising
stuff is not getting the job done as it did in college.
Art KB9MZ.....XG

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On 29 Oct, 05:31, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:
If Art was correct you could generate RF just by passing DC through a 1
wavelength loop. Gee wouldnt that make building a transmitter easy.

It would also mean that electrons are flowing into
the antenna and not returning to the source through
the transmission line.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Static particles are discharged from the antenna, not flowing!
What returns to the scource is the result of resistance
being present
Art

"Waves of Average Power"
 

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 29 Oct, 08:08, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...

The DC blast removes the surface particles and in this moment where
equilibrium does not exist the static particles are projected beyond
the boundary before the boundary shape
is repaired. Have you got your mind in the thinking mode yet?Now what
does the blast consist of when energy is released nfrom a capacitor
bearing in mind that the capacitor plates are made of a diagmatic
material? Remember that for this method of deduction all "flux" must
pass thru the field so what is it that is stored on the surface plates
on the capacitor? Sice some particles are ejected from the field it
must bve the same type particles that leave a capacitor where some
replace those that are ejected.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

ah, a blast removes the particles... you know how much of a 'blast' is
required to create corona on a wire the way you describe? what electric
field strength at the surface of a conductor is required to create that
type
of breakdown in air?

A battery, a flyback transformer etc etc
how much in vaccuum?

Does not require a vacuum. Remember the old days of spark plug
transmissions?

define your terms and show all
work or you will lose points on the final grade.

what happens if i build a capacitor with ferromagnetic material??? does
it
not work?

No

what about if I use paramagnetic material?

Yes

David turn your attention to antenna computor programs
When made they made assumptions which is a no, no with laws.
The same computor program produces verification of the model!
So why not think about whether computor programs are incorrectly based
or Maxwells laws has some errors. Start your investigation from a
rock
hard surface and not sand which has a habit of drifting in time and
determine
or verify again Maxwells laws and computor programming basics.
Is science back to the poll taking days for verification?
Stop floundaring and get down to serious thinking since memorising
stuff is not getting the job done as it did in college.
Art KB9MZ.....XG



why should i believe you, you just said that a capacitor with iron plates
can't work which is provably wrong. your understanding of computer modeling
of antennas is similarly flawed.

"Waves of Average Power"
 

On Oct 29, 8:31 am, art wrote:

Cecil, people have stopped calling me a blithering idiot!

After a while it gets boring... :/
MK