Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Poynting vector = ExH = E*H*sin(A)

Incorrect. The Poynting vector is defined as E x H*. The vector
directions are critically important.

Those who don't remember what the cross product is,
please reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product

Another name for the cross product is the vector product.

Quoting "Fields and Waves ..." by Ramo & Whinnery:

Poynting vector = ExH These are, of course, vectors.

Quoting "Reference Data for Radio Engineers":

ExH is called the Poynting vector. Again, vectors.

The average Poynting vector is defined as
Re(E x H*)/2 in my references.

So your "Incorrect." assertion above is proven to
be incorrect.

The Poynting vector for a pure standing wave = 0.

Says who? Perhaps the time and space averages or "net", whatever that
means, but not the local instantaneous Poynting vector.

Let's deal with the average Poynting vector. The real
power in the fields is equal to the magnitude of the
average Poynting vector. There is zero real power in
the standing waves. Therefore, the average Poynting
vector is zero at every point on a line containing
pure standing waves.

So, using Occam's razor, here's the same question
for you stated in a different way.

If E and H* are both non-zero, how can the following equation
be equal to zero all up and down the line as we know it is for
standing waves?

Pav = Re(E x H*)/2 = 0 where E 0 H*

It is always zero even when both E and H are not zero.

Nonsense. It is E x H* at every point. If E or H is zero then the
Poynting vector is zero. Otherwise it will not be zero.

True for a uniform plane wave. But I have already proved
that a standing wave is not a uniform plane wave.
Pav = Re(E x H*)/2 = zero for a standing wave. I hope
you don't question that fact of physics.

The answer is that you have started with incorrect equations.

The answer is exactly what you have been missing. Please
solve the updated problem above.

It is obvious that if V*I*cos(A) = 0, then Re(E x H*)/2
must also be zero even when E and H* are not zero. How
do you explain that fact?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
The phasor has nothing to do with spatial direction of the field vector.

The E-field and H-field of an EM wave can certainly
be represented as an exponential function when the
EM wave is normal to the reference plane. Think
about it. Hecht used that feature in his book.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On Jan 17, 2:13*pm, art wrote:
On 17 Jan, 09:51, Cecil Moore wrote:





art wrote:
How can one focus so long on travelling and standing waves when the
radiation portion
of the subject has not been explained? If waves is the subject it
cannot be discussed coherently if you cannot describe the mechanism of
radiation, ...

The mechanism of radiation is pretty simple from a quantum
electrodynamic standpoint. Accelerated electrons emit
photons. Some of the photons escape the antenna. The
energy lost by the escaping photons must be replaced
by the source. QED. :-)

Art, if you would replace electrons with photons in
your blast-off theory, you will be closer to the facts.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

If it concentrated on
say, a simple parallel circuit, a very simple circuit then the
absolute physics of what is being discussed would be an immense help
in explaining this wave discussion.ARRL states that an antenna is a
simple parallel circuit

Here is my civil response: For this discussion there is little benefit
in using lumped component theory. The standing wave stores energy in
an antenna in a manner similar to energy stored in an inductor and a
capacitor in a resonant component circuit but it is not very useful to
use lumped components when explaining why a standing wave cannot be
used to measure delay in a coil, for example.

Further questions that challenge your (and the ARRL's) simplified
model:

Is the resonant circuit dependent on the capacitance and inductance of
the antenna or its length?

If your answer is "both", (which it is), why does it happen to be
both?

Why does 1/4WL of the length of the antenna just happen to be a
resonant point of the capacitance (in x _farads) and inductance (in y-
henries) of the antenna?

Why physically is that so? Nature is telling you something there.

You should understand that concept well before you get to the
radiation of particles (and they WILL be photons).

AI4QJ









but this concentration on antenna workings is
blind siding every body as well as providing a means for twisting the
discussion because the makings of radiation is not known.
Why not illustrate waves in a simple parallel circuit so that
observers can partake in this discussion which, if it ever comes to
closure, could then be used to demonstrate their effect on radiation?
Onlookers are more than willing to partake in the discussion but
presently they are on the side lines because as presented it is
limited to only those whose intent is to argue without obtaining
closure and their feeding habits are insatiable as you are finding
out.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 12:14, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
Why not illustrate waves in a simple parallel circuit so that
observers can partake in this discussion which, if it ever comes to
closure, could then be used to demonstrate their effect on radiation?

This discussion, to a large extent, is concerned with the
nature of RF waves. There are no RF waves in a simple
parallel circuit. I posted a list of characteristics
of an EM plane wave. A parallel circuit doesn't match
those characteristics.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
But I am not sure they understand one bit of what you are proposing!
With respect to your remark on my radiation attempts.
When this group did not understand the relevance of Gaussian equation
with those of Maxwell
I decided to dumb it down and refer only to particles. Later I was
forced to move up to electrons because of counter posting. If I was to
move now up to protons when the group does not understand electrons or
even the common parallel circuit I think I would then parallel your
situation where you refuse to dummy down to reflect the audience.
Thisd would then mean a continuum of postings that would only go
around in circles becaus of their past cessation in learning.
Best regards
Art

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

art wrote:
I decided to dumb it down and refer only to particles. Later I was
forced to move up to electrons because of counter posting. If I was to
move now up to protons when the group does not understand electrons or
even the common parallel circuit I think I would then parallel your
situation where you refuse to dummy down to reflect the audience.

There are a host of applications that simply cannot be dummied
down to the lumped circuit level. I am unable to teach my dog
to look at the clock and tell whether it is dinnertime or not.
Is that my fault or hers? The answer is more complicated than
one might think at first glance.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 13:30, wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:13*pm, art wrote:





On 17 Jan, 09:51, Cecil Moore wrote:

art wrote:
How can one focus so long on travelling and standing waves when the
radiation portion
of the subject has not been explained? If waves is the subject it
cannot be discussed coherently if you cannot describe the mechanism of
radiation, ...

The mechanism of radiation is pretty simple from a quantum
electrodynamic standpoint. Accelerated electrons emit
photons. Some of the photons escape the antenna. The
energy lost by the escaping photons must be replaced
by the source. QED. :-)

Art, if you would replace electrons with photons in
your blast-off theory, you will be closer to the facts.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

If it concentrated on
say, a simple parallel circuit, a very simple circuit then the
absolute physics of what is being discussed would be an immense help
in explaining this wave discussion.ARRL states that an antenna is a
simple parallel circuit

Here is my civil response: For this discussion there is little benefit
in using lumped component theory. The standing wave stores energy in
an antenna in a manner similar to energy stored in an inductor and a
capacitor in a resonant component circuit but it is not very useful to
use lumped components when explaining why a standing wave cannot be
used to measure delay in a coil, for example.

Further questions that challenge your (and the ARRL's) simplified
model:

Is the resonant circuit dependent on the capacitance and inductance of
the antenna or its length?

If your answer is "both", (which it is), why does it happen to be
both?

Why does 1/4WL of the length of the antenna just happen to be a
resonant point of the capacitance (in x _farads) and inductance (in y-
henries) of the antenna?

Why physically is that so? Nature is telling you something there.

You should understand that concept well before you get to the
radiation of particles (and they WILL be photons).

AI4QJ

but this concentration on antenna workings is



blind siding every body as well as providing a means for twisting the
discussion because the makings of radiation is not known.
Why not illustrate waves in a simple parallel circuit so that
observers can partake in this discussion which, if it ever comes to
closure, could then be used to demonstrate their effect on radiation?
Onlookers are more than willing to partake in the discussion but
presently they are on the side lines because as presented it is
limited to only those whose intent is to argue without obtaining
closure and their feeding habits are insatiable as you are finding
out.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your whole posting is just silly. First you accuse me of lieing now
you want to provoke me with stupidity. You need to upgrade to a
understanding of a tank circuit.Yes, it is used in your transmitter.
Google it and study it. Free speech is great but it also reveals your
mentality. And you are just bull ****ing in the absence of knoweledge.

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 15:31, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
I decided to dumb it down and refer only to particles. Later I was
forced to move up to electrons because of counter posting. If I was to
move now up to protons when the group does not understand electrons or
even the common parallel circuit I think I would then parallel your
situation where you refuse to dummy down to reflect the audience.

There are a host of applications that simply cannot be dummied
down to the lumped circuit level. I am unable to teach my dog
to look at the clock and tell whether it is dinnertime or not.
Is that my fault or hers? The answer is more complicated than
one might think at first glance.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com
Cecil,
I respectfully do not agree with that.I would suggest that the antenna
mechanics what I am preaching is directly applicable to complex
circuitry.If antenna theory can't
apply to such then the theory is in error.Antenna radiation came to a
halt in understanding some 50+ years ago.Since then science have tried
a lot of new sciences that even tho they do not solve the mystery of
radiation provides a whole new stream of old wives tales.And hams are
sucking every thing up without question. Nature has simple habits , it
is humans that try to make it complicated.
My best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG (uk)

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Poynting vector = ExH = E*H*sin(A)

Incorrect. The Poynting vector is defined as E x H*. The vector
directions are critically important.

Those who don't remember what the cross product is,
please reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product

Another name for the cross product is the vector product.

Quoting "Fields and Waves ..." by Ramo & Whinnery:

Poynting vector = ExH These are, of course, vectors.

Quoting "Reference Data for Radio Engineers":

ExH is called the Poynting vector. Again, vectors.

The average Poynting vector is defined as
Re(E x H*)/2 in my references.

So your "Incorrect." assertion above is proven to
be incorrect.


I am glad to see you agree with me. However, your long exposition above
is not what you said previously, E*H*sin(A).

Therefore, your proof that my "Incorrect" assertion is incorrect is
itself incorrect.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
The phasor has nothing to do with spatial direction of the field vector.

The E-field and H-field of an EM wave can certainly
be represented as an exponential function when the
EM wave is normal to the reference plane. Think
about it. Hecht used that feature in his book.

Totally ducking the issue, as usual.

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 18:25, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...

your whole posting is just silly. First you accuse me of lieing now
you want to provoke me with stupidity. You need to upgrade to a
understanding of a tank circuit.Yes, it is used in your transmitter.
Google it and study it. Free speech is great but it also reveals your
mentality. *And you are just bull ****ing in the absence of knoweledge."

OK art, I notice a great improvement in your having only 3 spelling errors
in 5 sentences. You are a fool. If your postings could ever be elevated to
the level of mere stupidity, then it might be possible to correct your
misconceptions. However, one cannot deal with true insanity by any rational
approach such as that. You do not drive me to use Google; you drive me to
dictionary.com so I can find the words appropriate to describe the idiocy of
your ravings. However, it isn't worth the effort so I will leave you mired
in your intellectual wasteland, reading your postings from time to time for
the entertainment value of comic relief. For the sake of *the hobby I will
continue point out the fairy-tale nature of your postings lest the casual
reader of this newsgroup ever get the wrong impression of what the typical
ham radio operator thinks is antenna "theory".

AI4QJ

For entertainment value look for where the photon term came
from.....Quantum theory
which has not been proven. If a particle os in a magnetic field it can
take on some of the properties of that field. To be propelled requires
mass as does a mechanical vibration of a radiator. Yes mechanical laws
equate with electrical laws.The object that was repelled is a mass
with anti gravitational tendencies which allows it to have straight
line trajectory.
That straight line trajectory is of a partical that now has potential
energy received from a magnetic field. That energy becomes Kinetic
energy on impact with a receiving antenna which thus is instrumental
with a multitude of other particles in applying a mechanical force
whose reaction is supplied by the receiving radiator in the form of
vibration. When you are talking radio you are talking MHz which
translates into millions of particles or samples taken by the
receiving antenna, a lot more than your ear can accomplish. The proton
idea was thought up by Einstein in an effort to understand what
radiation is and he died without solving that puzzle.
Einstein made a tremendous amounts of errors in his life time and this
is just one of them.
Ham's look for resonance has the salvation of all but this is just a
ham's point of view. Like a quadratic equation there are two answers
to choose from, but only one that satisfies Newtons requirement for
equilibrium. Ham's choose to recognise just resonance because it is
self serving for amateur operation,but science will always follow the
requirement for equilibrium
just as all the masters did.So many new sciences were invented in an
effort to identify radiation that were not required because the
simplicity Of Gaussian law reflected the true nature of radiation.
You have called me a liar and a fool but are not willing to raise a
few thousand dollars to prove that I do not have a 160M antenna on the
top of my tower, that I am a fool and a liar Money is waiting for you
and your backers just by y showing I do not have a 160M antenna
sitting on my tower. You have some gall to call me names and then
backslide when asked to prove your point.
No, I am not going to insult you, your own actions show what manner of
man you are.
Art Unwin...KB9MZ....xg(uk)

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
There are a host of applications that simply cannot be dummied
down to the lumped circuit level. I am unable to teach my dog
to look at the clock and tell whether it is dinnertime or not.
Is that my fault or hers? The answer is more complicated than
one might think at first glance.

Well, sure. But you are bragging about the intelligence of your
dog--you are not likely to find that in a ng--often. ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Therefore, your proof that my "Incorrect" assertion is incorrect is
itself incorrect.

Please answer the question. It is known that
Re(ExH*)/2 = 0 for pure standing waves all up and
down the line. If E and H* are both non-zero, how
can Re(ExH*)/2 be zero?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The E-field and H-field of an EM wave can certainly
be represented as an exponential function when the
EM wave is normal to the reference plane. Think
about it. Hecht used that feature in his book.

Totally ducking the issue, as usual.

No, I'm waiting for an answer from you. It is known
that Re(ExH*)/2=0 for pure standing waves all up
and down the line. Since E and H* are not zero all
up and down the line, how is that possible?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

art wrote:

You have called me a liar and a fool but are not willing to raise a
few thousand dollars to prove that I do not have a 160M antenna on the
top of my tower, that I am a fool and a liar Money is waiting for you
and your backers just by y showing I do not have a 160M antenna
sitting on my tower. You have some gall to call me names and then
backslide when asked to prove your point.
No, I am not going to insult you, your own actions show what manner of
man you are.
Art Unwin...KB9MZ....xg(uk)

Art, I've asked you to provide information on your 160m antenna twice
previously. You referred me to an eham tower of babel after the first
and responded something about not operating on 160 for the second.

I'll ask you for the third time: Would you explain your 160m antenna
for us? Do you believe it to be as good or better than a full-sized
inverted L over an extensive radial field? Have I wasted time, effort
and money in installing my inverted L when an 18 foot antenna would have
done the same job?

Dave K8MN

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 20:43, Dave Heil wrote:
art wrote:
You have called me a liar and a fool but are not willing to raise a
few thousand dollars to prove that I do not have a 160M antenna on the
top of my tower, that I am a fool and a liar Money is waiting for you
and your backers just by y showing I do not have a 160M antenna
sitting on my tower. You have some gall to call me names and then
backslide when asked to prove your point.
No, I am not going to insult you, your own actions show what manner of
man you are.
Art Unwin...KB9MZ....xg(uk)

Art, I've asked you to provide information on your 160m antenna twice
previously. *You referred me to an eham tower of babel after the first
and responded something about not operating on 160 for the second.

I'll ask you for the third time: *Would you explain your 160m antenna
for us? *Do you believe it to be as good or better than a full-sized
inverted L over an extensive radial field? *Have I wasted time, effort
and money in installing my inverted L when an 18 foot antenna would have
done the same job?

Dave K8MN

Dave,
Over the years many have asked that same question and I have answered
it many times.
When ever a newbie comes along they always ask the same question
without looking back at my past posts since they want to argue. Now it
is you who is starting the post with a caustic comment regarding the
"tower of Babel" but at no time have you or any newbie initiated a
discussion before making a insult to follow the crowd. What do you
think I should do when you call my writing "babel"? Now the computor
programs state that a tilted element provides more horizontal gain
than a horizontal element. This was followed up independently on this
newsgroup.No debate regarding the coroberation
So should we all dump the antenna computor programs? Many hams say
they did this or did that and produced better than sliced bread. Hams
respond that you didn't measure on the range properly so give me the
math. I started off with the math which was corroberated by a doctor
working for a space agency. Guess what? He got plastered for "poor"
mathematics.
This group cannot debate any thing which is why only a few dominate
the group now. Past experts have left!So I ask you"how should this
group be run"?
Art

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
The phasor has nothing to do with spatial direction of the field vector.

Sorry, but The IEEE Dictionary disagrees with you.
In the description of the Poynting vector, it says:
"E and H are the electric and magnetic field vectors
in phasor notation ..."

I have prepared a graph of a snapshot in time of
a forward wave and reflected wave of equal magnitudes.
When the waves are superposed at the reference plane,
the total E-field and total H-field are 180 degrees
out of phase. The graph is at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/EHSuper.JPG
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 20:44, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...
On 17 Jan, 18:25, "AI4QJ" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

...

your whole posting is just silly. First you accuse me of lieing now
you want to provoke me with stupidity. You need to upgrade to a
understanding of a tank circuit.Yes, it is used in your transmitter.
Google it and study it. Free speech is great but it also reveals your
mentality. And you are just bull ****ing in the absence of knoweledge."

OK art, I notice a great improvement in your having only 3 spelling errors
in 5 sentences. You are a fool. If your postings could ever be elevated to
the level of mere stupidity, then it might be possible to correct your
misconceptions. However, one cannot deal with true insanity by any
rational
approach such as that. You do not drive me to use Google; you drive me to
dictionary.com so I can find the words appropriate to describe the idiocy
of
your ravings. However, it isn't worth the effort so I will leave you mired
in your intellectual wasteland, reading your postings from time to time
for
the entertainment value of comic relief. For the sake of the hobby I will
continue point out the fairy-tale nature of your postings lest the casual
reader of this newsgroup ever get the wrong impression of what the typical
ham radio operator thinks is antenna "theory".

AI4QJ

:No, I am not going to insult you,

I'm sure you have had you fill of hurling insults at me tonite. Just part of
the entertainment.

:your own actions show what manner of:
:man you are.

Pot Kettle Black

Tell me how a 1/4W tank circuit in my transmitter works, art.

AI4QJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have one in your transmitter and you don't know how it works so
you ask me.
Why? You can ask KB9..... or the MI5. If you cross post they will get
back to you.
I promise.They miss you. Maybe one of the above is actually you!

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

art wrote:

...
Dave,
Over the years many have asked that same question and I have answered
it many times.

Yeah Art, I have notice the exact same thing. I think he is one of
those "special people." Most likely, took "special classes" when he was
in school. We should probable just ignore this fact--indeed, we should,
most likely, just ignore him ...

When ever a newbie comes along they always ask the same question
without looking back at my past posts since they want to argue. Now it
is you who is starting the post with a caustic comment regarding the
"tower of Babel" but at no time have you or any newbie initiated a
discussion before making a insult to follow the crowd. What do you
think I should do when you call my writing "babel"? Now the computor
programs state that a tilted element provides more horizontal gain
than a horizontal element. This was followed up independently on this
newsgroup.No debate regarding the coroberation
So should we all dump the antenna computor programs? Many hams say
they did this or did that and produced better than sliced bread. Hams
respond that you didn't measure on the range properly so give me the
math. I started off with the math which was corroberated by a doctor
working for a space agency. Guess what? He got plastered for "poor"
mathematics.
This group cannot debate any thing which is why only a few dominate
the group now. Past experts have left!So I ask you"how should this
group be run"?
Art

Yes, but all that is probably just a factor/side-effect of the special
classes he which he was "initiated" with.

You'd be better looking for more "intellectual fields" to plant your
ideas in ...

Warm regards,
JS

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 17 Jan, 13:30, wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:13*pm, art wrote:





On 17 Jan, 09:51, Cecil Moore wrote:

art wrote:
How can one focus so long on travelling and standing waves when the
radiation portion
of the subject has not been explained? If waves is the subject it
cannot be discussed coherently if you cannot describe the mechanism of
radiation, ...

The mechanism of radiation is pretty simple from a quantum
electrodynamic standpoint. Accelerated electrons emit
photons. Some of the photons escape the antenna. The
energy lost by the escaping photons must be replaced
by the source. QED. :-)

Art, if you would replace electrons with photons in
your blast-off theory, you will be closer to the facts.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

If it concentrated on
say, a simple parallel circuit, a very simple circuit then the
absolute physics of what is being discussed would be an immense help
in explaining this wave discussion.ARRL states that an antenna is a
simple parallel circuit

Here is my civil response: For this discussion there is little benefit
in using lumped component theory. The standing wave stores energy in
an antenna in a manner similar to energy stored in an inductor and a
capacitor in a resonant component circuit but it is not very useful to
use lumped components when explaining why a standing wave cannot be
used to measure delay in a coil, for example.

Further questions that challenge your (and the ARRL's) simplified
model:

Is the resonant circuit dependent on the capacitance and inductance of
the antenna or its length?

If your answer is "both", (which it is), why does it happen to be
both?

Why does 1/4WL of the length of the antenna just happen to be a
resonant point of the capacitance (in x _farads) and inductance (in y-
henries) of the antenna?

Why physically is that so? Nature is telling you something there.

You should understand that concept well before you get to the
radiation of particles (and they WILL be photons).

AI4QJ

but this concentration on antenna workings is



blind siding every body as well as providing a means for twisting the
discussion because the makings of radiation is not known.
Why not illustrate waves in a simple parallel circuit so that
observers can partake in this discussion which, if it ever comes to
closure, could then be used to demonstrate their effect on radiation?
Onlookers are more than willing to partake in the discussion but
presently they are on the side lines because as presented it is
limited to only those whose intent is to argue without obtaining
closure and their feeding habits are insatiable as you are finding
out.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why are you asking me all these questions?
Can't you read a book?
Why not ask an expert on Eham and then come back
armed for an arguement. At the moment you are un armed
and defenceless. By the way the money is still out there.
It is not such a large amount but it will pay for lunch
while you crow about proving me a liar or you could be crying
about how you were dethroned instead. T'was you who made
that foolish statement in the first place. Somebody stated
that they had a 160M antenna on the top of their tower which
isaparently is rediculous. Now a small amount of money is
being mentioned and now you have second thoughts.
A 160M antenna is crazy for those who believe all is known about
antennas
and you perceive yourself as an expert.What are you waiting
for,chicken wings?

Energy and Work
 

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:17:44 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:



Feynman is not generally available, but he is certainly held by many
of those stumbling over the terms of their own invention.



Thanks for the response, Richard.

I had consulted Feynman's Volumes I and II prior to posting and saw
nothing there to support the idea that an EM wave performs work in
moving through a region of free space. Hence, my original post.

73,
Chuck NT3G




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
... your long exposition above
is not what you said previously, E*H*sin(A).

I think you know that I meant the magnitudes only,
but to be entirely technically correct it should
have been:

Poynting vector = ExH = |E|*|H|*sin(A)

The same question remains: When E and H are both
not zero, how can the Poynting vector be zero?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Therefore, your proof that my "Incorrect" assertion is incorrect is
itself incorrect.

Please answer the question. It is known that
Re(ExH*)/2 = 0 for pure standing waves all up and
down the line. If E and H* are both non-zero, how
can Re(ExH*)/2 be zero?

Known by whom?

If you are talking about time and/or spatial averages then yes, the
Poynting vector will be zero. If you are talking about instantaneous
calculations at any point and time, then no, the Poynting vector will
not be zero all up and down the line.

Once again you have misinterpreted something you read in a book.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The E-field and H-field of an EM wave can certainly
be represented as an exponential function when the
EM wave is normal to the reference plane. Think
about it. Hecht used that feature in his book.

Totally ducking the issue, as usual.

No, I'm waiting for an answer from you. It is known
that Re(ExH*)/2=0 for pure standing waves all up
and down the line. Since E and H* are not zero all
up and down the line, how is that possible?

Anything is possible in your Fractured Fairytale Physics.

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
The phasor has nothing to do with spatial direction of the field vector.

Sorry, but The IEEE Dictionary disagrees with you.
In the description of the Poynting vector, it says:
"E and H are the electric and magnetic field vectors
in phasor notation ..."

I have prepared a graph of a snapshot in time of
a forward wave and reflected wave of equal magnitudes.
When the waves are superposed at the reference plane,
the total E-field and total H-field are 180 degrees
out of phase. The graph is at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/EHSuper.JPG

The graph is complete nonsense. There is no rotation of the fields when
they undergo reflection. Any ordinary text on E&M or optics will show
you the equations and the correct sketches.

You are obviously still confusing phasors and fields. More FFP.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Energy and Work
 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:22:48 -0500, Chuck
wrote:

Thanks for the response, Richard.

Hi Chuck,

You're welcome.

I had consulted Feynman's Volumes I and II prior to posting and saw
nothing there to support the idea that an EM wave performs work in
moving through a region of free space. Hence, my original post.

It is also noteworthy that electrons don't exhibit much friction
either. (Feynman is particularly interesting in regard to friction
too.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Once again you have misinterpreted something you read in a book.

Once again, you have refused to answer a simple question.
If E and H are not zero, how can ExH be zero?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Once again you have misinterpreted something you read in a book.

Once again, you have refused to answer a simple question.
If E and H are not zero, how can ExH be zero?

What is this? The RRAA version of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Since the standing wave energy is being used to transform
impedances, it cannot also be used for radiation purposes -
like the energy in a standing wave on a transmission line
cannot be used both to transform impedances and to heat
up a load.


Would you care to elaborate on the idea that "energy is being used to
transform impedances"?


If reflections are nonexistent, no transformation takes
place, i.e. there is no SWR circle, just a point at the
center of the Smith Chart and the system is flat.

If reflections exist, then the superposition of the
forward wave and reflected wave transforms the
load impedance to some other impedance on the SWR
circle.

A 1/4WL transformer, for instance, will not transform
unless there are reflections present.

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Since the standing wave energy is being used to transform
impedances, it cannot also be used for radiation purposes -
like the energy in a standing wave on a transmission line
cannot be used both to transform impedances and to heat
up a load.


Would you care to elaborate on the idea that "energy is being used to
transform impedances"?


If reflections are nonexistent, no transformation takes
place, i.e. there is no SWR circle, just a point at the
center of the Smith Chart and the system is flat.

If reflections exist, then the superposition of the
forward wave and reflected wave transforms the
load impedance to some other impedance on the SWR
circle.

A 1/4WL transformer, for instance, will not transform
unless there are reflections present.

You fail to explain how any of that makes energy unavailable for
"radiation purposes".

ac6xg

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
The graph is complete nonsense. There is no rotation of the fields when
they undergo reflection. Any ordinary text on E&M or optics will show
you the equations and the correct sketches.

Good grief, Gene. There is a 360 degree rotation in the fields
every wavelength. The direction of rotation is associated with
the direction of travel of the wave and is displayed by EZNEC
when the current phase option is turned on. All you have to
do to see the rotation of the traveling wave is to download
http://www.w5dxp.com/rhombicT.EZ

Those simplified sketches are making you simple-minded.
Assuming you are a member of the IEEE, look up this paper:
"Rotation in electromagnetic field equations". Or Google
"Rotation and the Electromagnetic Field".

"Optics", by Hecht, is one of your ordinary texts. That is
where the material for that graph comes from. The IEEE Dictionary
says: "E and H are the electric and magnetic field vectors in
phasor notation". If that graph is nonsense to you, it is your
fault, not mine.

Hecht says "Optics", 4th edition, page 289, about standing waves:

"The composite disturbance is then:

E = Eo[sin(kx+wt) + sin(kx-wt)]

Applying the identity:

sin A + sin B = 2 sin 1/2(A+B)*cos 1/2(A-B)

yields:

E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)"

"This is the equation for a STANDING or STATIONARY WAVE, as opposed
to a traveling wave. Its profile does not move through space; it is
clearly not of the form Func(x +/- vt)."

"... a phasor rotating counterclockwise at a rate omega is equivalent
to a wave traveling to the left (decreasing x), and similarly, one
rotating clockwise corresponds to a wave traveling to the right
(increasing x)."

Hecht uses phasors to represent EM waves all through his book.
He explains the standing wave E-field based on the two traveling
waves, E1-field and E2-field, thusly:

"The resultant phasor is E1 + E2 = E ... Keeping the two [traveling
wave] phasors tip-to-tail and having E1 rotate counterclockwise as
E2 rotates (at the same rate) clockwise, generates E [total] as a
function of 't'."

[Standing wave phase] "doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant
wave it represents doesn't progress through space - its a standing
wave."

Traveling wave phase rotates. Standing wave phase doesn't.

Speaking of "... net transfer of energy, for the pure standing
wave there is none."

The forward wave and reflected wave E-field and H-field vectors
are represented by phasors just as indicated in the IEEE Dictionary.
One is rotating clockwise and the other is rotating counterclockwise.
The Poynting vector for a pure standing wave is equal to zero just
as illustrated in my graph at: http://www.w5dxp.com/EHSuper.JPG
Given those boundary conditions and solving for the angle between
the standing wave E-field and H-field yields 0 or 180 degrees.

Are you really more interested in presenting false information
and saving face than you are in valid technical facts?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Once again, you have refused to answer a simple question.
If E and H are not zero, how can ExH be zero?

What is this? The RRAA version of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

No, this is the RRAA version of someone unwilling to accept
technical facts. Your name is Legion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
You fail to explain how any of that makes energy unavailable for
"radiation purposes".

This is not rocket science. If the energy is being used to
transform impedances, it is obviously unavailable to be lost
as radiation. If all the forward energy is radiated by the
antenna, there exists no impedance transformation in the
transmission line. A highly technical quote must be needed:

"You can't have your energy cake and eat it too." :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
The graph is complete nonsense. There is no rotation of the fields
when they undergo reflection. Any ordinary text on E&M or optics will
show you the equations and the correct sketches.

Good grief, Gene. There is a 360 degree rotation in the fields
every wavelength. The direction of rotation is associated with
the direction of travel of the wave and is displayed by EZNEC
when the current phase option is turned on. All you have to
do to see the rotation of the traveling wave is to download
http://www.w5dxp.com/rhombicT.EZ

Those simplified sketches are making you simple-minded.
Assuming you are a member of the IEEE, look up this paper:
"Rotation in electromagnetic field equations". Or Google
"Rotation and the Electromagnetic Field".

"Optics", by Hecht, is one of your ordinary texts. That is
where the material for that graph comes from. The IEEE Dictionary
says: "E and H are the electric and magnetic field vectors in
phasor notation". If that graph is nonsense to you, it is your
fault, not mine.

Hecht says "Optics", 4th edition, page 289, about standing waves:

"The composite disturbance is then:

E = Eo[sin(kx+wt) + sin(kx-wt)]

Applying the identity:

sin A + sin B = 2 sin 1/2(A+B)*cos 1/2(A-B)

yields:

E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)"

"This is the equation for a STANDING or STATIONARY WAVE, as opposed
to a traveling wave. Its profile does not move through space; it is
clearly not of the form Func(x +/- vt)."

"... a phasor rotating counterclockwise at a rate omega is equivalent
to a wave traveling to the left (decreasing x), and similarly, one
rotating clockwise corresponds to a wave traveling to the right
(increasing x)."

Hecht uses phasors to represent EM waves all through his book.
He explains the standing wave E-field based on the two traveling
waves, E1-field and E2-field, thusly:

"The resultant phasor is E1 + E2 = E ... Keeping the two [traveling
wave] phasors tip-to-tail and having E1 rotate counterclockwise as
E2 rotates (at the same rate) clockwise, generates E [total] as a
function of 't'."

[Standing wave phase] "doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant
wave it represents doesn't progress through space - its a standing
wave."

Traveling wave phase rotates. Standing wave phase doesn't.

Speaking of "... net transfer of energy, for the pure standing
wave there is none."

The forward wave and reflected wave E-field and H-field vectors
are represented by phasors just as indicated in the IEEE Dictionary.
One is rotating clockwise and the other is rotating counterclockwise.
The Poynting vector for a pure standing wave is equal to zero just
as illustrated in my graph at: http://www.w5dxp.com/EHSuper.JPG
Given those boundary conditions and solving for the angle between
the standing wave E-field and H-field yields 0 or 180 degrees.

Are you really more interested in presenting false information
and saving face than you are in valid technical facts?


Cecil,

This is truly sad. I thought you had finally begun to understand this
stuff, but you have regressed back into the same old nonsense. You are
still totally confusing phasors with field vectors. They are utterly,
totally, and absolutely unrelated.

Get help.

Call me what you like. Bye.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Any ordinary text on E&M or optics will show
you the equations and the correct sketches.

Please stop staring at your simple-minded sketches
and stare at this diagram of an EM wave for awhile.
Maybe you are due for an epiphany.

http://www.w5dxp.com/EHWave.JPG
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

You fail to explain how any of that makes energy unavailable for
"radiation purposes".


This is not rocket science.

Or any other kind of science for that matter.

If the energy is being used to
transform impedances, it is obviously unavailable to be lost
as radiation.

Sure, assuming energy is being "used" to perform an operation in which
no work is done. You'll need to prove the first part of the sentence
in order to show the second part to be true.

ac6xg

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
This is truly sad. I thought you had finally begun to understand this
stuff, but you have regressed back into the same old nonsense. You are
still totally confusing phasors with field vectors. They are utterly,
totally, and absolutely unrelated.

Saying that doesn't make it true, Gene, although it may hoodwink
some of the uninitiated into believing your old wives' tales.

I just posted a more sophisticated diagram of an EM wave for
you at: http://www.w5dxp.com/EHWave.JPG

Have those simple-minded sketches that you have been staring
at made you simple-minded or are you capable of something else?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 18 Jan, 10:52, Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
The graph is complete nonsense. There is no rotation of the fields when
they undergo reflection. Any ordinary text on E&M or optics will show
you the equations and the correct sketches.

Good grief, Gene. There is a 360 degree rotation in the fields
every wavelength. The direction of rotation is associated with
the direction of travel of the wave and is displayed by EZNEC
when the current phase option is turned on. All you have to
do to see the rotation of the traveling wave is to downloadhttp://www.w5dxp.com/rhombicT.EZ

Those simplified sketches are making you simple-minded.
Assuming you are a member of the IEEE, look up this paper:
"Rotation in electromagnetic field equations". Or Google
"Rotation and the Electromagnetic Field".

"Optics", by Hecht, is one of your ordinary texts. That is
where the material for that graph comes from. The IEEE Dictionary
says: "E and H are the electric and magnetic field vectors in
phasor notation". If that graph is nonsense to you, it is your
fault, not mine.

Hecht says "Optics", 4th edition, page 289, about standing waves:

"The composite disturbance is then:

E = Eo[sin(kx+wt) + sin(kx-wt)]

Applying the identity:

sin A + sin B = 2 sin 1/2(A+B)*cos 1/2(A-B)

yields:

E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)"

"This is the equation for a STANDING or STATIONARY WAVE, as opposed
to a traveling wave. Its profile does not move through space; it is
clearly not of the form Func(x +/- vt)."

"... a phasor rotating counterclockwise at a rate omega is equivalent
to a wave traveling to the left (decreasing x), and similarly, one
rotating clockwise corresponds to a wave traveling to the right
(increasing x)."

Hecht uses phasors to represent EM waves all through his book.
He explains the standing wave E-field based on the two traveling
waves, E1-field and E2-field, thusly:

"The resultant phasor is E1 + E2 = E *... Keeping the two [traveling
wave] phasors tip-to-tail and having E1 rotate counterclockwise as
E2 rotates (at the same rate) clockwise, generates E [total] as a
function of 't'."

[Standing wave phase] "doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant
wave it represents doesn't progress through space - its a standing
wave."

Traveling wave phase rotates. Standing wave phase doesn't.

Speaking of "... net transfer of energy, for the pure standing
wave there is none."

The forward wave and reflected wave E-field and H-field vectors
are represented by phasors just as indicated in the IEEE Dictionary.
One is rotating clockwise and the other is rotating counterclockwise.
The Poynting vector for a pure standing wave is equal to zero just
as illustrated in my graph at:http://www.w5dxp.com/EHSuper.JPG
Given those boundary conditions and solving for the angle between
the standing wave E-field and H-field yields 0 or 180 degrees.

Are you really more interested in presenting false information
and saving face than you are in valid technical facts?
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil,
Just a small question.
Do you include in your analysis of E and H waves
the effect of the field produced by a diamagnetic field produced by
current flow in the material, where the field has a tendency to be at
right angles? This is what PROF Hately was looking to do on his EH
invention without understanding the importance of the material used in
generating the fields in question.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

art wrote:
Do you include in your analysis of E and H waves
the effect of the field produced by a diamagnetic field produced by
current flow in the material, ...

Nope, I tend to ignore effects that I judge to be secondary.
Of course, I don't even pretend to exercise perfect judgment.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On 18 Jan, 12:15, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
Do you include in your analysis of E and H waves
the effect of the field produced by a diamagnetic field produced by
current flow in the material, ...

Nope, I tend to ignore effects that I judge to be secondary.
Of course, I don't even pretend to exercise perfect judgment.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

But when adding vectors as I see it there is no secondary vectors,
which in this case
says both vectors are in phase no less.I thought I would probe a bit
in this long
thread to ascertain where the controversy is. To understand that alone
in the face of thousand postings is a very difficult task indeed.Even
more so for a mechanical engineer
Very best regards
Art

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On Jan 18, 12:44*am, art wrote:
On 17 Jan, 20:44, "AI4QJ" wrote:





"art" wrote in message

...
On 17 Jan, 18:25, "AI4QJ" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

....

your whole posting is just silly. First you accuse me of lieing now
you want to provoke me with stupidity. You need to upgrade to a
understanding of a tank circuit.Yes, it is used in your transmitter.
Google it and study it. Free speech is great but it also reveals your
mentality. And you are just bull ****ing in the absence of knoweledge.."

OK art, I notice a great improvement in your having only 3 spelling errors
in 5 sentences. You are a fool. If your postings could ever be elevated to
the level of mere stupidity, then it might be possible to correct your
misconceptions. However, one cannot deal with true insanity by any
rational
approach such as that. You do not drive me to use Google; you drive me to
dictionary.com so I can find the words appropriate to describe the idiocy
of
your ravings. However, it isn't worth the effort so I will leave you mired
in your intellectual wasteland, reading your postings from time to time
for
the entertainment value of comic relief. For the sake of the hobby I will
continue point out the fairy-tale nature of your postings lest the casual
reader of this newsgroup ever get the wrong impression of what the typical
ham radio operator thinks is antenna "theory".

AI4QJ

:No, I am not going to insult you,

I'm sure you have had you fill of hurling insults at me tonite. Just part of
the entertainment.

:your own actions show what manner of:
:man you are.

Pot Kettle Black

Tell me how a 1/4W tank circuit in my transmitter works, art.

AI4QJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have one in your transmitter and you don't know how it works so
you ask me.
Why? You can ask KB9..... or the MI5. If you cross post they will get
back to you.
I promise.They miss you. Maybe one of the above is actually you!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you found out that I have a 1/4 wave tank circuit in my
transmitter. Only the MI5 could have known that. Hmmm...