|
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
|
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
On 5 Jan, 05:38, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:07*am, mike wrote: * Keith Dysart wrote: * On Jan 3, 12:55pm, Mike Monett wrote: * [...] * Your explanation *is *easily proven false. Let's *suppose *it was * true. * Suppose it *was *possible to introduce a pulse of *charge *onto a * conductor. * Since like *charges *repel *each * other, *what *keeps *the pulse * together? In *other *words, * what *prevents *it *from destroying * itself? * Then, when *the *first *pulse meets *the *second, *what mechanism * allows them to bounce off each other? * Then, after *they *have bounced off *each *other, *what mechanism * keeps them together? * All good questions. * For which you have no answers. * But there's more bad news. Here's your original post of Dec 29: * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * Subject: Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current * Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:33:46 -0800 (PST) * From: Keith Dysart * Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna * Keith Dysart wrote: * [...] * Consider a 50 ohm transmission line that is 4 seconds long *with a * pulse generator at one end and a 50 ohm resistor at the other. * The pulse generator generates a single 1 second pulse of *50 volts * into the line. Before and after the pulse its output voltage is 0. * While generating the pulse, 1 amp (1 coulomb/s) is being *put into * the line, so the generator is providing 50 watts to the line. * After one second the pulse is completely in the line. * The pulse is one second long, contains 1 coulomb of charge *and 50 * joules of energy. It is 50 volts with 1 amp: 50 watts. * Let's examine the midpoint (2 second) on the line. * At two *seconds *the *leading edge of *the *pulse *arrives *at the * midpoint. The voltage rises to 50 volts and the current *becomes 1 * amp. One *second later, the voltage drops back to 0, *as *does the * current. The *charge *and the energy *have *completely *passed the * midpoint. * When the *pulse *reaches *the *end *of *the *line, *50 *joules are * dissipated in the terminating resistor. * Notice a *key *point about this description. It *is *completely in * terms of *charge. *There *is not a *single *mention *of *EM waves, * travelling or otherwise. * Now we expand the experiment by placing a pulse generator *at each * end of *the *line and triggering them to each generate *a *50V one * second pulse *at *the same time. So after one second *a *pulse has * completely entered each end of the line and these pulse are racing * towards each other at the speed of light (in the line). In another * second these pulses will collide at the middle of the line. * What will *happen? *Recall one of the *basics *about *charge: like * charge repel. So it is no surprise that these two pulses of charge * bounce off each and head back from where they came. At *the center * of the *line, for one second the voltage is 100 V (50 V *from each * pulse), while *the current is always zero. No *charge *crossed the * mid-point. No *energy crossed the mid-point (how could *it *if the * current is always zero (i.e. no charge moves) at the mid-point. * [...] * So do the travelling waves "reflect" off each other? Save the term * "reflect" *for * those * cases * where * there * is * an impedance * discontinuity and use "bounce" for those cases where no *energy is * crossing a point and even Cecil may be happy. But bounce it does. * Keith * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * In order *for *the *pulses to bounce *off *each *other, *your theory * requires that electrons move at nearly the speed of light. It might best be called a hypothesis, but I don't think it requires that electrons move at the speed of light, rather charge move at the speed of light. This would seem consistent with normal explanations where charge starts to enter the line at some time T and starts to exit the line at T + distance/speedOfLight later. [snipped, an interesting computation of the speed of electros] * There's more *bad *news. If two collections of 1 *Coulomb *each were * concentrated one *meter *apart, *the *force *between *them *could be * calculated from *Coulomb's Law. In this example, the *force *is 1.01 * million tons: * *http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html * This means the pulses could not even come close enough to bounce off * each other. *This would certainly wreck any timing analysis *you try * to do on the signals. Another interesting analysis. It raises the question of how a pulse containing one coulomb over a measurable length of line actually maintains its shape and does not immediately disperse. This is a detail well beyond my knowledge, but I could speculate that it is related to the inductance and forces of the resulting magnetic field. I'd further speculate that the force between the pulses can not travel faster than the speed of light, and since the pulse itself is travelling at the speed of light, the two pulses reach each other at the same time that force does. * So your *theory *fails *simple * logic *tests, *it *requires invalid * electron velocities, and it fails Coulomb's law. * It is *clear the pulses cannot bounce off each other, *as *you claim * above when you state "But bounce it does." * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * But it appears that your underlying suggestion is that *charge and * charge flow in the distributed capacitance and inductance *can not * be used to analyze transmission lines. * That is not what you proposed. Your post states: Perhaps I was not clear in my post. In any case, the question is fundamental... Can charge and charge flow in the distributed capacitance and inductance be used to analyze transmission lines? * Notice a *key *point about this description. It *is *completely in * terms of *charge. *There *is not a *single *mention *of *EM waves, * travelling or otherwise. * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * And yet *I *commonly *see discussion *of *current *in transmission * lines. Current is charge flow per unit time. Is this all invalid? * Must we *abondon measurements of current? Voltage? *These *are all * based on the assumption of charge being a useful concept. * You are *just *trying *to fog the issue. You *cannot *use *charge by * itself as you claim above. No. I am just trying to make clear the consequences of choosing "no" as the answer to the question I directly posed above. ...Keith- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Keith, if you could get people to subscribe to hyperphysics so that they may read of the tremendous strides with respect to radiation,it's speed, acute angles of radiation and the relationships to light and even to the solar system, especially with respect to the Milky way. All of these discussions with respect to collision of waves would disappear, since all laws are based around equilibrium. When equilibrium is broken as with a radiator that is not resonant one cannot procede as normal in translating existing laws for a unbalanced situation. When one does this one enters a circular debate that has no end like this one which many suposedly experts have deviated from cardinal laws. If these so called "experts" kept up with the modern phases of science as shown by hyperphysics which you have pointed to instead of remaining inthe stable position of their junior years learning by rote they would be constantly reminded of the importance of confining them selves to the world of equilibrium. Alas, they prefer to live in the confines of the past where modern physisists prefer to keep pace with knoweledge. However, these new physists only communicate between themselves such there is a barrier between the old and the new, those who seek knoweledge and those that are content with the world of the past. Regards Art |
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil, W5DXP wrote: "Unfortunately for your argument, nothing in the universe (AFAWK) travels faster than an EM wave. But maybe you can invent Warp Drive or Slip-Stream Drive. :-)" Nothing to do with the argument, but I believe there is an exception that comes to exceeding the speed of light, and that is when the wave is slowed in a medium to a speed less than c. Sometimes EM waves travel at less than the speed of light in a vacuum but they are still traveling at the speed of light in the medium. VF*c is still the speed of light. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
On 4 Jan, 09:17, art wrote:
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 ELECTRICAL full wave length ( a half wave PHYSICAL length radiator) *and equates *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 earth's 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. WHY? bECAUSE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES FROM A DIAMAGNETIC MATERIAL SUCGH AS ALUMINUM OR COPPER IS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE AXIS OF CURRENT FLOW WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS WITH A FERRITE MAGNETIC MATERIAL 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.( A MHZ IS A MILLION CYCLES SO ONE CAN IMAGINE THE NUMBER OF IMPACT SAMMLES ARE TRANSFERED WHEN AUDIO OCCURRES) 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. Ofcourse the big this that all the above is corroberated using existing antenna computor programs on antennas when an optimiser is used or you can google the steps taken at every instance Best Regards Art Unwin.....KB9MZ...XG (uk)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
art blathered on and scribbled:
WHY? bECAUSE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES FROM A DIAMAGNETIC MATERIAL SUCGH AS ALUMINUM OR COPPER IS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE AXIS OF CURRENT FLOW WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS WITH A FERRITE MAGNETIC MATERIAL so, you should be able to take a compass, a piece of copper wire, and a piece of steel or iron wire and tell the difference between the material just by passing a dc current through them? |
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
On 6 Jan, 09:40, "Dave" wrote:
art blathered on and scribbled: WHY? bECAUSE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES FROM A DIAMAGNETIC MATERIAL SUCGH AS ALUMINUM OR COPPER IS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE AXIS OF CURRENT FLOW WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS WITH A FERRITE MAGNETIC MATERIAL so, you should be able to take a compass, a piece of copper wire, and a piece of steel or iron wire and tell the difference between the material just by passing a dc current through them? David It certainly is not the same axis as the material that the current is travelling through! Remember my comments with respect to a pendulum when a eclipse occures, and the happennings in the Bermuda triangle! If you did go to college look up your 101 notes or review the new thread I have started for amateurs and socalled experts. David, I am like an ever ready battery, I keep going and going until I can educate all about how radiation occurs in a scientific fashion to those who are not educated. Unless debate points out errors that can be substantiated I will go on and on and on and.... Art Unwin....KB9MZ....xg (uk) |
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
in his own world, art let loose with more words of wisdom: WHY? bECAUSE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES FROM A DIAMAGNETIC MATERIAL SUCGH AS ALUMINUM OR COPPER IS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE AXIS OF CURRENT FLOW WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS WITH A FERRITE MAGNETIC MATERIAL so, you should be able to take a compass, a piece of copper wire, and a piece of steel or iron wire and tell the difference between the material just by passing a dc current through them? It certainly is not the same axis as the material that the current is travelling through! Remember my comments with respect to a pendulum when a eclipse occures, and the happennings in the Bermuda triangle! ok, lets make this simple. what is the equation for the vector representation of the magnetic field around an infinitely long straight wire made of copper? and what is the equation for it around a wire made of iron? and how do they relate to the bermuda triangle? show all work, and complete before the next eclipse. |
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
On Jan 6, 1:28 pm, art wrote:
David, I am like an ever ready battery, I keep going and going until I can educate all about how radiation occurs in a scientific fashion to those who are not educated. Unless debate points out errors that can be substantiated I will go on and on and on and.... Art Unwin....KB9MZ....xg (uk) "Educating" people using copious amounts of bafflegab has been proven by Underwriters Laboratory to be a hazard to carbon life forms of all types. You should cease and desist from this illogical behavior says Dr. Spock. Captain Kirk seems to be in full agreement. I asked Dr. McCoy about this, and he said, "Oh hell, it's too much of that Vulcan Ale he's been drinking". Scotty had no comment, but only scratched his head in disgust, and starting mumbling something about dilithium crystals never being in a true state of equilibrium, even under the strict care and supervision of Dr. McCoy. As a final comment, Captain Kirk said, well, there you have it then, bafflgab is never in a true state of equilibrium. Even on the Enterprise. MK |
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
Dave wrote:
in his own world, art let loose with more words of wisdom: WHY? bECAUSE THE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES FROM A DIAMAGNETIC MATERIAL SUCGH AS ALUMINUM OR COPPER IS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE AXIS OF CURRENT FLOW WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS WITH A FERRITE MAGNETIC MATERIAL so, you should be able to take a compass, a piece of copper wire, and a piece of steel or iron wire and tell the difference between the material just by passing a dc current through them? It certainly is not the same axis as the material that the current is travelling through! Remember my comments with respect to a pendulum when a eclipse occures, and the happennings in the Bermuda triangle! ok, lets make this simple. what is the equation for the vector representation of the magnetic field around an infinitely long straight wire made of copper? and what is the equation for it around a wire made of iron? and how do they relate to the bermuda triangle? show all work, and complete before the next eclipse. There's no point in being a smart-ass, Chip. You don't have any better grasp of electromagnetic theory than anyone else on this newsgroup, including Art. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 1:28 pm, art wrote: David, I am like an ever ready battery, I keep going and going until I can educate all about how radiation occurs in a scientific fashion to those who are not educated. Unless debate points out errors that can be substantiated I will go on and on and on and.... Art Unwin....KB9MZ....xg (uk) "Educating" people using copious amounts of bafflegab has been proven by Underwriters Laboratory to be a hazard to carbon life forms of all types. You should cease and desist from this illogical behavior says Dr. Spock. Captain Kirk seems to be in full agreement. I asked Dr. McCoy about this, and he said, "Oh hell, it's too much of that Vulcan Ale he's been drinking". Scotty had no comment, but only scratched his head in disgust, and starting mumbling something about dilithium crystals never being in a true state of equilibrium, even under the strict care and supervision of Dr. McCoy. As a final comment, Captain Kirk said, well, there you have it then, bafflgab is never in a true state of equilibrium. Even on the Enterprise. MK live long and prosper. me thinks that art is a bit out of equilibrium... but its fun to try and tweak him into contradicting himself, which he does frequently. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com