Dave wrote:
likewise in transmission lines, forget photons,
use currents and voltages, you will never run into a case where photons are
necessary, or even useful, in transmission line problems.

Fields and waves *are* quantized photons. Radiation
from an antenna is a lot easier to understand as
a cloud of photon particles that escape rather than
the EM fields that break away like soap bubbles.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Radiation
from an antenna is a lot easier to understand as
a cloud of photon particles that escape rather than
the EM fields that break away like soap bubbles.

Cecil,

Only in your dreams. Antenna photons may be great for your handwaving
explanations. Let's see you do the math. Do you suppose there is a
conspiracy among the many authors of text books to use only the
cumbersome wave formulations? Are photons too easy? Would the textbooks
then be unneeded?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:35:25 -0800, Roger wrote:

The derivation did several things for me. It clearly explains why we do
not have a runaway current when we first connect a voltage to a
transmission line,

Hi Roger,

It doesn't describe why the current flows in the first place, does it?

Are you asking for a discussion about batteries?

what transmission line impedance is, that moving
particles can not be the entire explanation for the electromagnetic wave
(because the energy field moves much faster than the electrons), and
puts into place a richer understanding of inductance.

And here we begin on the wonderful world of spiraling explanations,
not found in the original source: "Moving particles cannot be the
entire explanation?" How about that in the first place, particles
don't inhabit the explanation at all?
You originally asked what I learned from Zo = 1/cC. What I learn from
it may not be obvious to you. Discussing particles would be a
completely new discussion.

What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves.

I'm even convinced most of them would not call this DC too.

We agree on this.

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term.

They would've been confused anyway.

They don't seem to be confused, once the limitations of human language
are overcome. We have many very intelligent and astute observers in
this newsgroup.

It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.

And this is still DC?

Do you really know that mother nature is not ALWAYS operating in small
steps of DC? How small is the scale that you can resolve to? I can not
answer where DC starts and stops. Maybe you can?

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC?

This is best left in the privacy of the home.

It seems that a simple yes or no answer could suffice here. How is
"privacy in the home" related to Zo = 1/cC?


However, none of your comments respond to the question: What is with
this death grip on DC? What makes it so important that it be so
tightly wedded to Waves? What mystery of the cosmos is answered with
this union that has so long escaped the notice of centuries of trained
thought?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Please elaborate about the "death grip on DC". How is DC related to
waves, or better, where does DC stop and waves begin? Should we never
consider any portion of a wave to be DC like we do in calculus routinely?

My original remark about about Zo = 1/cC expressed my surprise that such
a relationship existed. It was not an original discovery by me, only
new knowledge to me. From your reaction, this must be the first time
you have run across the equation and how it might be derived. I
provided two links to web pages where others have derived the equation
from a different aspect, and even more pathways exist. It seems to be a
very fundamental relationship despite being not well known or wide used.

73, Roger, W7WKB

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:24:06 -0800, Roger wrote:

It doesn't describe why the current flows in the first place, does it?

Are you asking for a discussion about batteries?

Hi Roger,

"About" batteries?

You originally asked what I learned from Zo = 1/cC.

Actually, my original was:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:08:54 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi Roger,
This last round has piqued my interest when we dipped into DC. Those
"formulas" would lead us to a DC wave velocity?
And I have repeated that request at frequent intervals as DC having a
wave velocity is quite a departure from the catechism.

What I learn from
it may not be obvious to you. Discussing particles would be a
completely new discussion.

OK, a completely new discussion that perhaps was not in your interest
to raise or expand upon here. I see nothing productive in it either.

What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves.

I'm even convinced most of them would not call this DC too.

We agree on this.

So, are we to discard this phenomenon of the clumsy current bulge so
illustrated at one of your links? It seems to have injected this
aberrant usage of DC which then donned the mantle of Wave.

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term.

They would've been confused anyway.

They don't seem to be confused, once the limitations of human language
are overcome. We have many very intelligent and astute observers in
this newsgroup.

Then they are not confused, simple so stunned as to not ask the
questions you anticipate. I haven't seen any objections, other than
yours, to the term Stepped Wave. Are you referring to private
correspondence?

It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.

And this is still DC?

Do you really know that mother nature is not ALWAYS operating in small
steps of DC? How small is the scale that you can resolve to? I can not
answer where DC starts and stops. Maybe you can?

With great certainty and precision. I have measured the fundamental
units of DC out 7 places, traceable to the National Bureau of
Standards. I have also measured AC from sub-Hertz to 12GHz to the
highest precision and certainties in the same occupation. The body of
science and engineering is not confused about this demarcation.

For any purpose of discussion, DC is regarded by science and
engineering to mean either:
1. Static, non-changing potential (your discussion violates this);
2. Constant, unvarying current (your discussion also violates this).

If your current or voltage cannot subscribe to these commonly held
descriptions, your currents and voltages are not DC.

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC?

This is best left in the privacy of the home.

It seems that a simple yes or no answer could suffice here. How is
"privacy in the home" related to Zo = 1/cC?

I have stated the harm several times, repetition does not seem to be
adequate in that your having perceived benefit is a personal choice. I
see no reason to dwell on the subjective.

Please elaborate about the "death grip on DC".

How is DC related to
waves, or better, where does DC stop and waves begin?

It was your premise. If you cannot explain it (and I see absolutely
nothing that would help you explain it) - then this is obviously the
end of the matter to which I first (see that question above) asked you
about.

Should we never
consider any portion of a wave to be DC like we do in calculus routinely?

Calculus is done "by parts." In derivation DC is the first thing to
disappear! In integration, DC arrives as an unknown! If this
discussion of Calculus were to progress any further, it would involve
dt which imagines no past, no future, just now. DC comes equipped
with all three nailed down to the same value.

My original remark about about Zo = 1/cC expressed my surprise that such
a relationship existed. It was not an original discovery by me, only
new knowledge to me. From your reaction, this must be the first time
you have run across the equation and how it might be derived. I
provided two links to web pages where others have derived the equation
from a different aspect, and even more pathways exist. It seems to be a
very fundamental relationship despite being not well known or wide used.

It is no more fundamental than when Tennessee state law mandated that
the value of PI would be 22/7ths. Your fundamental is merely a
shortcut, not a fact of nature. Like that Tennessee law, you can't
use it for very much when push comes to shove. I certainly wouldn't
buy tires based on the circumference calculated from Tennessee law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Roger" wrote in message
. ..
My original remark about about Zo = 1/cC expressed my surprise that such a
relationship existed.

you should have gone with your gut and acknowledged the surprise by checking
your work and finding out why it doesn't exist... or why it is not used
instead of the real LC equations in all the text books.

It was not an original discovery by me, only new knowledge to me.

Ok, if it was not your discovery, quote a reputable source where it was
discovered.
btw, your referenced web page 'speedingedge.com' has the formula correct:
Z0 = 1/(C v)
note, the v, not c in the equation. and CL should be C sub L.
also the uci.edu site has the formula exactly the same, with v instead of c.
so start searching again for one that has c in the equation instead of v.


From your reaction, this must be the first time you have run across the
equation and how it might be derived. I provided two links to web pages
where others have derived the equation from a different aspect, and even
more pathways exist. It seems to be a very fundamental relationship
despite being not well known or wide used.

73, Roger, W7WKB

its the first time, and hopefully the last time i expect to see such an
error.

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:24:06 -0800, Roger wrote:

It doesn't describe why the current flows in the first place, does it?
Are you asking for a discussion about batteries?

Hi Roger,

"About" batteries?

You originally asked what I learned from Zo = 1/cC.

Actually, my original was:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:08:54 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi Roger,
This last round has piqued my interest when we dipped into DC. Those
"formulas" would lead us to a DC wave velocity?
And I have repeated that request at frequent intervals as DC having a
wave velocity is quite a departure from the catechism.

The formula will not give a "DC wave" velocity, but one can be found
from the experiment. First however, we must agree upon what unit we are
to assign a velocity to.

What I learn from
it may not be obvious to you. Discussing particles would be a
completely new discussion.

OK, a completely new discussion that perhaps was not in your interest
to raise or expand upon here. I see nothing productive in it either.

What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves.
I'm even convinced most of them would not call this DC too.
We agree on this.

So, are we to discard this phenomenon of the clumsy current bulge so
illustrated at one of your links? It seems to have injected this
aberrant usage of DC which then donned the mantle of Wave.

Perhaps this goes toward the definition of the unit of DC that we might
assign a velocity to?

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term.
They would've been confused anyway.
They don't seem to be confused, once the limitations of human language
are overcome. We have many very intelligent and astute observers in
this newsgroup.

Then they are not confused, simple so stunned as to not ask the
questions you anticipate. I haven't seen any objections, other than
yours, to the term Stepped Wave. Are you referring to private
correspondence?

Nope, just what I have seen on the news group.


It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.
And this is still DC?
Do you really know that mother nature is not ALWAYS operating in small
steps of DC? How small is the scale that you can resolve to? I can not
answer where DC starts and stops. Maybe you can?

With great certainty and precision. I have measured the fundamental
units of DC out 7 places, traceable to the National Bureau of
Standards. I have also measured AC from sub-Hertz to 12GHz to the
highest precision and certainties in the same occupation. The body of
science and engineering is not confused about this demarcation.

For any purpose of discussion, DC is regarded by science and
engineering to mean either:
1. Static, non-changing potential (your discussion violates this);
2. Constant, unvarying current (your discussion also violates this).

If your current or voltage cannot subscribe to these commonly held
descriptions, your currents and voltages are not DC.

My description of the experiment mentioned wave front several times. I
also assumed a steady current behind the wave front. Why are we
concentrating on the DC part to the exclusion of the wave front?

BTW, congratulations on measuring characteristics out to several decimal
places. That takes great care, precision, and skill.

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC?
This is best left in the privacy of the home.
It seems that a simple yes or no answer could suffice here. How is
"privacy in the home" related to Zo = 1/cC?

I have stated the harm several times, repetition does not seem to be
adequate in that your having perceived benefit is a personal choice. I
see no reason to dwell on the subjective.

Please elaborate about the "death grip on DC".

How is DC related to
waves, or better, where does DC stop and waves begin?

It was your premise. If you cannot explain it (and I see absolutely
nothing that would help you explain it) - then this is obviously the
end of the matter to which I first (see that question above) asked you
about.

This again goes to defining the unit of DC that we wish to assign a
velocity to.

Should we never
consider any portion of a wave to be DC like we do in calculus routinely?

Calculus is done "by parts." In derivation DC is the first thing to
disappear! In integration, DC arrives as an unknown! If this
discussion of Calculus were to progress any further, it would involve
dt which imagines no past, no future, just now. DC comes equipped
with all three nailed down to the same value.

Am I to understand that the only use of the term "DC" that you will
accept is "A steady state without beginning or end, having always
existed, and will exist forever more". Of course such a thing would not
have a "wave front"

My original remark about about Zo = 1/cC expressed my surprise that such
a relationship existed. It was not an original discovery by me, only
new knowledge to me. From your reaction, this must be the first time
you have run across the equation and how it might be derived. I
provided two links to web pages where others have derived the equation
from a different aspect, and even more pathways exist. It seems to be a
very fundamental relationship despite being not well known or wide used.

It is no more fundamental than when Tennessee state law mandated that
the value of PI would be 22/7ths. Your fundamental is merely a
shortcut, not a fact of nature. Like that Tennessee law, you can't
use it for very much when push comes to shove. I certainly wouldn't
buy tires based on the circumference calculated from Tennessee law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

A shortcut assuredly. Also another view of the physical world. Use it
when helps understanding, and abandon it when the model fails. After
all, no matter what precision we measure to, we are just working with
models. Perhaps the next decimal of precision will reveal a flaw or
hole in logic.

73, Roger, W7WKB

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
"Lumped inductance is often a good approximation to reality, so [most
models other than Cecil's] very sensibly use that as their
starting-point.

For the umpteenth time, Ian, I don't have a model developed
by me. The model I use is the distributed network model
invented before I was born. Dr. Corum merely expanded upon
that model and I consider his concepts to be valid.

Your lumped circuit model seems more like a religion
than a valid tool of science. Zero phase shift through
a real-world loading coil? That requires faster than
light propagation thought by many experts to be
impossible.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
It is no more fundamental than when Tennessee state law mandated that
the value of PI would be 22/7ths.

Good grief, that goes against The Bible which says the
value of PI is 3.0 and "everyone knows" The Bible cannot
be wrong because God inspired it to be written that way.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Keith Dysart wrote:
Each of the different ways mentioned for obtaining -j567
will produce a different impedance if the frequency is
changed. They were all frequency dependant.

Moral: Change the frequency and then observe what one
is dealing with?

I suggest that there is no value in thinking about
the "phase shift" at the discontinuity (which depending
on the black box chosen might not be present), and
merely think about the results of connecting the
-j567 impedance to the 600 ohm line.

The refusal to think about the phase shift at the
discontinuity is what got this whole thread started.

All you have to do to observe the calculated phase
shift is to use the s-parameter equations. When you
have done that, please get back to us.

Cecil did not answer the question, so I will
pose it again. If knowing the phase shift at
the terminals of the black box is important,
and you can not know it without knowing the
internals of the box, given a black box of
unknown internals but told that its terminals
present -j567 at the frequency of interest,
would you refuse to calculate the length
of 600 ohm line needed to produce 0 ohms?

Or asking the question another way: Is there
really a Santa Claus and a God?

Let's see you prove that it is really -j567 ohms
without applying any signal at all. How's that
for a requirement?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

AI4QJ wrote:
The value is more obvious when applying the concept to a loaded whip
antenna.

Sometimes an epiphany takes place in an associated
area. I was searching for the loaded whip answer
when I stumbled upon the dual-Z0 stubs, a subject
that seems to have been ignored in the amateur
literature.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com