Cecil Moore wrote:

...
RF current is a *result* of the H-field in the EM
wave. There are photons involved making it different
from DC. Electrons may (or may not) "bounce" off of
each other but photons traveling in opposite directions
in a transmission line do not and cannot "bounce" off
of each other. They pass each other like ships in the
night. Any theory based on photons "bouncing" off of
each other while traveling in opposite directions, is
inaccurate and doomed to failure. Simply applying the
scientific method will remedy the problem.

This thread has become long, it is so long--everyone must have some sort
of questions--or it (the thread) has prompted some sort of question(s)
in their minds'. If not, so be it, I am a "weirdo" for it ...

1) Does a .0001 Hz signal use photons? A .001 Hz? A .01 Hz? A .1 Hz? A 1
Hz? I mean, at what "magical point" do photons become involved?

2) What experiment(s) have "seen" these photons? A fogging of film
emulsion? ???

In all seriousness, I simply have a problem with photons doing much more
than "vibrating in near-place." With light, I can imagine photons ...

Warm regards,
JS

Dave wrote:
forget photons when thinking of
coax, antennas, currents, and waves, they will just confuse you.

Keith has taken your advice to forget photons.
Why is he confused?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith wrote:
1) Does a .0001 Hz signal use photons? A .001 Hz? A .01 Hz? A .1 Hz? A 1
Hz? I mean, at what "magical point" do photons become involved?

Already answered. Any time electrons are accelerated or
decelerated, photons are involved. Any frequency of AC
can provide electron acceleration and deceleration.

2) What experiment(s) have "seen" these photons? A fogging of film
emulsion? ???

Process of no-brainer elimination: Nothing else besides
photons can travel at the speed of light in a transmission
line (adjusted for the VF of the medium).
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
1) Does a .0001 Hz signal use photons? A .001 Hz? A .01 Hz? A .1 Hz? A
1 Hz? I mean, at what "magical point" do photons become involved?

Already answered. Any time electrons are accelerated or
decelerated, photons are involved. Any frequency of AC
can provide electron acceleration and deceleration.

2) What experiment(s) have "seen" these photons? A fogging of film
emulsion? ???

Process of no-brainer elimination: Nothing else besides
photons can travel at the speed of light in a transmission
line (adjusted for the VF of the medium).

Cecil:

I look for no fight, sometimes I just have "too much fun", sometimes at
others expense ... I really mean no harm ...

I just don't know ... I'll keep my mind open.

"No-brainer?" Huh, I'll work on increasing the "gray matter" here.
I'll check what's available in the health food stores. :-P

Regards,
JS

As always, I very much appreciate the education provided by Roy.

It seems to me that much of the problem here is the continuous
misunderstanding of the difference between "power" and "energy". What is
difficult for me to understand is the sustained misunderstanding, even after
the definitions have been reviewed time and time again.

Bill - W2WO

John Smith wrote:
"No-brainer?"

No-brainer for anyone who knows what particles are
available inside a transmission line.

Sorry for being short. My daughter is having
emergency surgery today and I am preparing
for a trip to warm sunny Syracuse, NY. :-(
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
"Does a surfer violate this definition?"

Traveling waves carry surfers to the beach. Standing waves only
oscillate the water surface up and down in place.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 3 Jan, 08:29, John Smith wrote:
Mike Monett wrote:
...
* The term *"bounce" means they interact. *Electromagnetic *signals do
* not interact. *They *superimpose. *Each *is *completely *unaware and
* unaffected by the other.
...
* Regards,

* Mike Monett

EM fields act that same as static magnetic fields.

Why not just get some iron filings, a paper and a couple of magnets?

Move the magnets about below the paper with the iron filings above and
actually get a visual on some magnetic fields and how they react to each
other?

I like things simple ... then the math can follow ...

Regards,
JS

John
You are quite correct in requiring things to be relatively
simple . And RF is very simple when you do not try to make it
difficult.
A radiator in equilibrium is a full wave length and equates with
a mechanical pendulum which is about as close as you can get to
perpetual motion
Electrically it is seen as a parallel circuit sometimes called a tank
circuit.
It to like a pendulum passes the same energy backwards and forward and
losing just a bit to resistance losses.Ofcourse everybody knows that
the pendulum has also a circular motion as well as backwards and
forwards so if RF is to be compared to a pendulum we must be sure to
account for that rotative motion. Nothing so far is anything unusual.
Now we supply energy to the circuit or radiator. The initial current
enters the inductance and generates a magnetic field. The current
applied then reverses because it is AC or periodic DC.
Without support from flowing current the magnetic field starts to
collaps such that the energy
that it generates moves on the the capacitor which like the inductor
will stop the enrgy from getting by and thus stores it, It acts in a
mirror image or opposite fashion to that of a conductor, when one
discharges the other collects what is discharged. So far John it is
all very simple since this can go on for ever backwards and forwards
and if we lose a bit of energy along the way the current generator is
there to replace what is lost.
Now we must look at the radiation properties as well as that circular
movement that we saw with the pendulum which is the only thing left to
describe.
In the atmosphere we have lots of dust that has penetrated the shields
around earth. These are nothing fancy just dust particles. Actually
these particles are called static particles and they just want to rest
somewhere.The odd thing here that all metals will not allow it to
settle
on them because like magnets with a hysterysis content they push away
this galactic dust.
Fortunately there are some metals and matter that do not retain a
internal hysterysis energy
pack like aluminum and copper and water so this duct pretty much seeks
these out to settle on.
Nothing really difficults so far John, no fancy names or fancy
bouncing.
So you see the reason why aluminum is used for radiators because they
belong to a familly known as diamagnetic material. So what is so fancy
about using aluminum to transport energy backwards and forward since
aluminum is not specifically used for pendulums? well there is a
specific reasons that the properties of aluminium fits in with current
flow and RF generation.
First it has a skin that is difficult for current to penetrate so any
field produced by current
can only be created outside the skin which unlike magnet material the
field cannot penetrate the inner material. Fortunately it is
conductive, on the othere side of the coin the field generated are
weak because they do not have internal magnetic fields in the metal to
support them. Still nothing special John , just a circuit sort of
thing, no proton things or fancy names to muddy up the water. Noe let
us look again as to what happens in the circuit.
Yup when the inductance creates a magnetic field it is a very weak
field so the energy passed on to the cappacitor is very small. Never
the less the acction of back and forth still goes on.
Now is when all the special things happen.
.............................................
The capacitor releases its energy like a blast of a opening door where
the electrons stored with energy in their pockets blast their way
towards the inductance. On the way it sweeps up
its brethberin electron particles that are devoid of energy on its way
to the inductor.
The inductor is not interested in static or energy less electrons
since the static does not have
any usefull energy required to make a mabnetic field .So the magnetic
field is generated on the outside of the inductance but here is the
guts of radiation. Diagmatic materials when they produce a field
produces a field at right angles to a normal ferromagnetic field.
This field tho very weak parries the oncomming static particles away.
The action spoken of for a momement disturbs the equilibrium that was
in place such that the airborne static particles
are thrown away from the eaths gravitational field. Pretty neat John,
nothing really new since all characteristics and properties are well
known and documented.
Now reviewing what happenned and comparing it to a pendulum. Yup we
had a back and forth motion but we already knew that because it was a
tank circuit. The weak movement of the magnetic field created a
'curling' type action which paried the onrushing levitated particles
away from the immediate scene. At the same time when all these
levitated particals was forced upwards away from the radiator each
particle provided an equal and opposite force which is applied to the
radiator the impacts of which reflecting the changing energy flow
from the capacitor. These multi impacts create a mechanical
oscillation within the radiator.
See John, again nothing special, everything is known. It is just that
like a jigsaw puzzle the complexity of which is determined from where
one starts which in my case started with the Gaussian theory.The
experts on the other hand did not know where to start so they inaiated
new sciences
Oh, and another thing those particles that are now trying to escape
the earth's gravity
field and in some cases bouncing off of the earths layers and comming
back looking for a
radiater of the right material that it can arrive at to settle upon
thus making a series of noises like a muscical box with a fantastic
caphony of sound andc vivrations on a resonal antenna.
As I said before John,no fancy names or extra things moving around to
take you attention away from what is really happening. All concurring
phenomina is a matter of record by past very clever people which is
beyond any doubt and, and I say 'and' like nature the mechanics of
action are very, very simple.
Best Regards
Art Unwin.....KB9MZ...XG (uk)

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 04:02:23 -0800 (PST)
Keith Dysart wrote:

On Jan 3, 2:14*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
The example was carefully chosen to illustrate the
point, of course. But that is the value of particular
examples.
When the pulses are not identical, the energy that crosses
the point is exactly sufficient to turn one pulse
into the other.
The remainder of the energy must bounce
because it does not cross the mid-point.
...Keith

So it really is almost as though the pulses travel through one
another, rather than bounce off one another.

I have seen the concept that energy doesn't cross nodal points alluded
to in some texts. *However there are so many exceptions to it found in
physical systems as to render it a dubious notion at best. Useful
perhaps for illustration purposes.

In the discussion of standing waves on a string, Halliday and Resnick
says "It is clear that energy is not transported along the string to
the right or to the left, for energy cannot flow past the nodal points
in the string, which are permanently at rest. *Hence the energy
remains "standing" in the string, although it alternates between
vibrational kinetic energy and elastic potential energy."

So the idea is valid for a simple harmonic oscillator in which there
are no losses. *In such a case, once the system begins oscillating, no
further input of energy is required in order to maintain oscillation.
* Clearly there is no flow of energy into or out of such a system.
What is clear is that energy doesn't pass through the nodes. *It is
less clear that there exists an inherent mechanism which prevents the
movement of energy.

And so it appears in cases where there is no transfer of energy that
one might claim that waves bounce off of one another. *There are no
other examples, and no supporting mechanism for it of which I am
aware, and so one might be equally justified in claiming that waves
pass through each other in all cases.

I'd suggest that this is only if the concept of the
waves in question does not include energy. In the
limiting case of the two waves being identical no
energy crosses the nodes. In other cases, only a
portion of the energy crosses the nodes.

If the concept of the waves includes energy, some
explanation is required to account for the wave
crossing the node, but its energy does not.

Some readers like to superpose energy just as
they do voltage, but in general this is not a
valid operation so I am uncomfortable using
it as the explanation.

...Keith

Food for thought.

Consider an isolated transmission line charged to some DC voltage. Then initiate current by attaching a resistor. We can identify a wave moving back from the junction, beginning at the time of contact. We can also, by monitering the current or power through/into the resistor, plot a wave going through/into the resistor. The two waves would be mirror images of one another. The forward wave would clearly carry energy, the backmoving wave would be a "book keeping" wave that reported the energy removed from the transmission line.

The bookkeeping wave would really be the visible part/result of a power wave that is the negative equivalent of the wave passing through the resistor. Mathematically defining the energy component of the power wave, we should have If*Ef = 1 - Ib*Eb, where If and Ef are the instantaneous measured values of forward current and voltage, and Ib and Eb are the instantaneous measured values of bookkeeping current and voltage. The number 1 defines the beginning energy level as 1. We should observe that If = Ir. If so, then Ef = 1 - Er. Remember, these would be instantaneous values.

73, Roger, W7WKB

Correction. Made a typo on the math equation.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:47:59 -0800
Roger Sparks wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 04:02:23 -0800 (PST)
Keith Dysart wrote:

On Jan 3, 2:14*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
The example was carefully chosen to illustrate the
point, of course. But that is the value of particular
examples.
When the pulses are not identical, the energy that crosses
the point is exactly sufficient to turn one pulse
into the other.
The remainder of the energy must bounce
because it does not cross the mid-point.
...Keith

So it really is almost as though the pulses travel through one
another, rather than bounce off one another.

I have seen the concept that energy doesn't cross nodal points alluded
to in some texts. *However there are so many exceptions to it found in
physical systems as to render it a dubious notion at best. Useful
perhaps for illustration purposes.

In the discussion of standing waves on a string, Halliday and Resnick
says "It is clear that energy is not transported along the string to
the right or to the left, for energy cannot flow past the nodal points
in the string, which are permanently at rest. *Hence the energy
remains "standing" in the string, although it alternates between
vibrational kinetic energy and elastic potential energy."

So the idea is valid for a simple harmonic oscillator in which there
are no losses. *In such a case, once the system begins oscillating, no
further input of energy is required in order to maintain oscillation.
* Clearly there is no flow of energy into or out of such a system.
What is clear is that energy doesn't pass through the nodes. *It is
less clear that there exists an inherent mechanism which prevents the
movement of energy.

And so it appears in cases where there is no transfer of energy that
one might claim that waves bounce off of one another. *There are no
other examples, and no supporting mechanism for it of which I am
aware, and so one might be equally justified in claiming that waves
pass through each other in all cases.

I'd suggest that this is only if the concept of the
waves in question does not include energy. In the
limiting case of the two waves being identical no
energy crosses the nodes. In other cases, only a
portion of the energy crosses the nodes.

If the concept of the waves includes energy, some
explanation is required to account for the wave
crossing the node, but its energy does not.

Some readers like to superpose energy just as
they do voltage, but in general this is not a
valid operation so I am uncomfortable using
it as the explanation.

...Keith

Food for thought.

Consider an isolated transmission line charged to some DC voltage. Then initiate current by attaching a resistor. We can identify a wave moving back from the junction, beginning at the time of contact. We can also, by monitering the current or power through/into the resistor, plot a wave going through/into the resistor. The two waves would be mirror images of one another. The forward wave would clearly carry energy, the backmoving wave would be a "book keeping" wave that reported the energy removed from the transmission line.

The bookkeeping wave would really be the visible part/result of a power wave that is the negative equivalent of the wave passing through the resistor. Mathematically defining the energy component of the power wave, we should have If*Ef = 1 - Ib*Eb, where If and Ef are the instantaneous measured values of forward current and voltage, and Ib and Eb are the instantaneous measured values of bookkeeping current and voltage. The number 1 defines the beginning energy level as 1. We should observe that If = Ir. If so, then Ef = 1 - Er. Remember, these would be instantaneous values.

Please correct the math typo.

If if = Ir, then Ef = 1/Ef - Eb

73, Roger, W7WKB



--
Roger Sparks