Standing waves
 

Frankly speaking no standing waves. Waves always travel. In air travel the
pressure pulse. When the two waves travel in opposite directions they
interfere. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundt's_tube
"The sound generator is turned on and the piston is adjusted until the sound
from the tube suddenly gets much louder. This indicates that the tube is at
resonance, which means its length is a multiple of the wavelength of the
sound wave. At this point the sound waves in the tube are in the form of
standing waves, and the amplitude of vibrations of air are zero at equally
spaced intervals along the tube, called the nodes."

Between the nodes are places where the amplitude is doubled. So the places
with doubled amplitude are standing. Pressure pulse travel.
In antennas is electron gas. The first place where the doubled amplitude
(amplitude means voltage or electron density) appear is end of the radials.
The next is halve wave apart from the end. Such places radiate strong
electric waves. They are the source of radiation.
Of course the next source is weaker because some part of energy is radiated.
But such is stronger than the trawled source (normal voltage pulse)

If antenna has only one source it is omnidirectional. If two or more is
directional because the waves from different sources interfere.

The halve wave dipole has the two sources. The next two appear than a
dipole is longer than the wave length.
So that what R. Clark wrote is obvious: "[* What is this proportional and
proportionate mean? For a dipole of
0.05 WL to a dipole of 0.5WL, the far field change for that 10:1
variation is negligible. However, for a dipole of 0.5WL to a dipole
of 1.25WL, the far field change for that 2.5:1 (a smaller proportion)
variation is very noticeable.]

The above is the antenna with the Helmholtz' pressure wave.
Could anybody describe the antenna with the Heavisde's TEM waves?
In a few words. Do not send mi to library.
S*

Standing waves
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:15:56 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

If antenna has only one source it is omnidirectional. If two or more is
directional because the waves from different sources interfere.

The halve wave dipole has the two sources. The next two appear than a
dipole is longer than the wave length.
So that what R. Clark wrote is obvious: "[* What is this proportional and
proportionate mean? For a dipole of
0.05 WL to a dipole of 0.5WL, the far field change for that 10:1
variation is negligible. However, for a dipole of 0.5WL to a dipole
of 1.25WL, the far field change for that 2.5:1 (a smaller proportion)
variation is very noticeable.]

In the space of two sentences you contradict yourself. You don't get
it, do you?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

On Sep 17, 10:15*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Frankly speaking no standing waves. Waves always travel. In air travel the
pressure pulse. When the two waves travel in opposite directions they
interfere. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundt's_tube
"The sound generator is turned on and the piston is adjusted until the sound
from the tube suddenly gets much louder. This indicates that the tube is at
resonance, which means its length is a multiple of the wavelength of the
sound wave. At this point the sound waves in the tube are in the form of
standing waves, and the amplitude of vibrations of air are zero at equally
spaced intervals along the tube, called the nodes."

Between the nodes are places where the amplitude is doubled. So the places
with doubled amplitude are standing. Pressure pulse travel.
In antennas is electron gas. The first place where the doubled amplitude
(amplitude means voltage or electron density) appear is end of the radials.
The next is halve wave apart from the end. Such places radiate strong
electric waves. They are the source of radiation.

The problem I immediately see here is that you're probably interested
in electromagnetic radiation, not just the electric field. The
result, as I see it, is that the rest of your discussion is based on a
completely false premise. But see below.
....
The above is the antenna with the Helmholtz' pressure wave.
Could anybody describe the antenna with the Heavisde's TEM waves?
In a few words. Do not send mi to library.
S*

Others have tried to describe radiation from linear antennas in
reasonably simple terms. One of the best I know is Joseph Boyer's
pair of articles from May and June, I think it was, 1978 "Ham Radio"
magazine: "The Antenna-Transmission Line Analog." It's a non-
mathematical work; it will leave you with answers with not a lot to
back them up, but they do match what we observe, as far as I
understand it. I have these as a PDF, along with a fairly important
section from a book referenced by the articles.

Cheers,
Tom

Standing waves
 

On Sep 17, 12:15*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
If antenna has only one source it is omnidirectional. If two or more is
directional because the waves from different sources interfere.

More study is needed on your part, S*. Consult the textbooks of the
authors that already have been listed, and quoted here.

Your unproven, personal opinions are not sufficient to support some of
the statements you post-- which accounts for the "negative" comments
responding to them.

Every single real-world antenna in existence has more than one source
along its length that contributes to its radiation pattern, and
therefore has some directionality.

Your study and accurate understanding of the works of the authors
mentioned will prove this.

RF

Standing waves
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:15:56 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

If antenna has only one source it is omnidirectional. If two or more is
directional because the waves from different sources interfere.

The halve wave dipole has the two sources. The next two appear than a
dipole is longer than the wave length.
So that what R. Clark wrote is obvious: "[* What is this proportional and
proportionate mean? For a dipole of
0.05 WL to a dipole of 0.5WL, the far field change for that 10:1
variation is negligible. However, for a dipole of 0.5WL to a dipole
of 1.25WL, the far field change for that 2.5:1 (a smaller proportion)
variation is very noticeable.]

In the space of two sentences you contradict yourself. You don't get
it, do you?

"If antenna has only one source" means the monopole antena (the second
source is "graved")
"The halve wave dipole has the two sources" means "dipole has visible the
both ends".
O.K now?
S*

Standing waves
 

"Richard Fry"
...
On Sep 17, 12:15 pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
If antenna has only one source it is omnidirectional. If two or more is
directional because the waves from different sources interfere.

More study is needed on your part, S*. Consult the textbooks of the
authors that already have been listed, and quoted here.

Your unproven, personal opinions are not sufficient to support some of
the statements you post-- which accounts for the "negative" comments
responding to them.

I wrote: "Do not send me to librery".

Every single real-world antenna in existence has more than one source
along its length that contributes to its radiation pattern, and
therefore has some directionality.

I wrote" "Pressure pulse travel" I means that in monopole antena is one
strong source on the and and traveling source "along its length" .

Your study and accurate understanding of the works of the authors
mentioned will prove this.

Tell me who is right: Helmholtz or Heaviside?
S*

Standing waves
 

On Sep 18, 2:08*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
I wrote" "Pressure pulse travel" I means that in monopole
antena is one strong source on the and and traveling
source "along its length" .

I assume from what you posted before that you meant to write
"in a monopole antenna there is one strong source on the END..."

Could you please post the reason(s) you think so?

Note that only the change in current and charge, over time,
produces EM radiation. At the top of a monopole, and at the ends
of a dipole the net current is almost zero -- so those locations
generate very little of the total EM radiation from these antennas.

RF

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
"The halve wave dipole has the two sources" means "dipole has visible
the both ends".

A 1/2WL dipole is a standing wave antenna.
Are you saying that the forward energy is one source
and the energy reflected from the ends is a second
source?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

K7ITM wrote:
"The Antenna-Transmission Line Analog."

It's a good analog. For instance a 1/4WL open-wire
open-circuit stub made with resistance wire with
a resistivity of 0.0000021 ohms-m has a feedpoint
impedance of 35 ohms according to EZNEC.

The current distribution is a close approximation
to a 1/4WL monopole. The additional resistance
over copper approximates the energy lost to
radiation in a 1/4WL monopole.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

Richard Fry wrote:
At the top of a monopole, and at the ends
of a dipole the net current is almost zero -- so those locations
generate very little of the total EM radiation from these antennas.

Since the forward current and reflected current are equal
in magnitude and opposite in phase at the ends, they act
like transmission line currents and the magnetic fields
cancel at the ends. They are in phase at the feedpoint -
hence the maximum radiation at that point.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:51:04 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

In the space of two sentences you contradict yourself. You don't get
it, do you?

"If antenna has only one source"

Thank you for confirming that in spite of quoting me, you just don't
get it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

"Cecil Moore"
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
"The halve wave dipole has the two sources" means "dipole has visible
the both ends".

A 1/2WL dipole is a standing wave antenna.
Are you saying that the forward energy is one source
and the energy reflected from the ends is a second
source?

Each dipole has visible the two radials (sometimes end parts of the
transmitting line). Each radials has the one strong source at the end like
the Kundt's tube. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundt's_tube
A dipole has the two radials so it has at least the two strong sources.
Only the two if it is shorter then WL. If it is longer than WL then appear
the next sources on the both radials at each 1/2WL from the end.

I will be absent till Monday evening.
S*

Standing waves
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:51:04 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

In the space of two sentences you contradict yourself. You don't get
it, do you?

"If antenna has only one source"

Thank you for confirming that in spite of quoting me, you just don't
get it.

You go into details.
In the Gas Analogy the monopole antena is exactly like the Kundt's tube.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundt's_tube
A dipole has the two Kundt's tubes.
S*

Standing waves
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:47:19 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fry
wrote:

so those locations
generate very little of the total EM radiation from these antennas.

Hi Richard,

The entire radiator radiates, not just portions of it. The phase,
time, distance relationships along the length contribute to a myriad
of characteristics, but they are not separable from the complete
contribution.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:33:00 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

You go into details.

Yes, I do go into the details.

In the Gas Analogy the monopole antena is exactly like the Kundt's tube.

Analogy is a false arguement. In the car-seen-at-a-distance analogy,
this proves that only midgets or pygmies drive cars because we are too
big to fit into such small things seen in the distance.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

Richard Clark wrote:
The entire radiator radiates, not just portions of it. The phase,
time, distance relationships along the length contribute to a myriad
of characteristics, but they are not separable from the complete
contribution.

Using the method of moments, each segment contributes
radiation proportional to the net current in the segment.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:33:00 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

You go into details.

Yes, I do go into the details.

In the Gas Analogy the monopole antena is exactly like the Kundt's tube.

Analogy is a false arguement.

Heaviside did the Hydraulic Analogy. All is exactly the same like in the
fluids mechanics.
Next the electrons were discovered. Automatically Heaviside is a history and
the Gas Analogy is in power.


In the car-seen-at-a-distance analogy,
this proves that only midgets or pygmies drive cars because we are too
big to fit into such small things seen in the distance.

But you, radio people, are very close to waves and should be easy for you to
work out the answer for the Question:
Which Analogy is right?

I will be absent till Monday evening.
S*

Standing waves
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:13:17 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

All is exactly the same like in the fluids mechanics.

"Exactly" makes it very, very easy to show how an analogy fails:
Describe the laminar flow in terms of
the Reynolds number for
the interface between RF and a Biconical Antenna
and
the interface between RF and a thin wire Antenna.

If you do not understand
1. the terms of fluid mechanics and/or
2. cannot complete this request, then
your analogy has failed.

I won't wait for that obvious failure. This is several steps above
your pay-grade. So, you should really attempt to work on first
principles rather than rummaging in the attic for impressive artifacts
of science. The musty chestnuts you find would poison a dog.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:33:00 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

You go into details.

Yes, I do go into the details.

In the Gas Analogy the monopole antena is exactly like the Kundt's tube.

Analogy is a false arguement.

Heaviside did the Hydraulic Analogy. All is exactly the same like in the
fluids mechanics.
Next the electrons were discovered. Automatically Heaviside is a history
and the Gas Analogy is in power.


In the car-seen-at-a-distance analogy,
this proves that only midgets or pygmies drive cars because we are too
big to fit into such small things seen in the distance.

But you, radio people, are very close to waves and should be easy for you
to work out the answer for the Question:
Which Analogy is right?

I will be absent till Monday evening.
S*


neither analogy is 'right'. they are useful in limited circumstances to
demonstrate some basic pressure wave physics to young students. but neither
one properly reproduces electromagnetic waves.

Standing waves
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:13:17 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

All is exactly the same like in the fluids mechanics.

"Exactly" makes it very, very easy to show how an analogy fails:
Describe the laminar flow in terms of
the Reynolds number for

Hmm, I think I'd start with a very long K1FO yagi, say 50 elements.
Maybe even extend one to 100 elements to getting very fine details.
Then we look at the longitoodordinal current along the horizontal
element by element. I'll have to work on it a while though.

What are you thinking?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:


You send me to library. Try use his own words. Christofire do it (in
"Spherical radiation patern"):

God forbid that you should actually do some research! What a terrible
thought!

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:54:25 -0500, tom wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:13:17 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

All is exactly the same like in the fluids mechanics.

"Exactly" makes it very, very easy to show how an analogy fails:
Describe the laminar flow in terms of
the Reynolds number for

Hmm, I think I'd start with a very long K1FO yagi, say 50 elements.
Maybe even extend one to 100 elements to getting very fine details.
Then we look at the longitoodordinal current along the horizontal
element by element. I'll have to work on it a while though.

What are you thinking?

I am thinking that Stefan by lacking a demonstration of this
employment of his own chosen metaphor displays a vacuum in two subject
areas. As it stands, he stumbles through the nuances of RF. Instead,
he is trying to extrapolate them through a second subject, where, of
course, he tumbles over the nuances of fluidics.

The best we can expect is for him to haul a book to the nearest Xerox
and lean on the copy button to produce a snow job. The deepest
impression he will get of that intellectual experience is a paper cut.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

Richard Clark wrote:

What are you thinking?

I am thinking that Stefan by lacking a demonstration of this
employment of his own chosen metaphor displays a vacuum in two subject
areas. As it stands, he stumbles through the nuances of RF. Instead,
he is trying to extrapolate them through a second subject, where, of
course, he tumbles over the nuances of fluidics.

The best we can expect is for him to haul a book to the nearest Xerox
and lean on the copy button to produce a snow job. The deepest
impression he will get of that intellectual experience is a paper cut.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Very perspective.

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

I won't wait for that obvious failure. This is several steps above
your pay-grade. So, you should really attempt to work on first
principles rather than rummaging in the attic for impressive artifacts
of science.

And what should do Richard Harrison who wrote: "At the open circuited ends
of a resonant antenna there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
dorward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field. "
S*

Standing waves
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message

In the Gas Analogy the monopole antena is exactly like the Kundt's tube.

Heaviside did the Hydraulic Analogy. All is exactly the same like in the
fluids mechanics.
Next the electrons were discovered. Automatically Heaviside is a history
and the Gas Analogy is in power.

But you, radio people, are very close to waves and should be easy for you
to work out the answer for the Question:
Which Analogy is right?

neither analogy is 'right'. they are useful in limited circumstances to
demonstrate some basic pressure wave physics to young students. but
neither one properly reproduces electromagnetic waves.

"electromagnetic waves" are paper waves. Radio waves are real waves. Now we
must not know what the waves are like. Now we should estabilish from which
part of the radiator radiate the radio waves.
Do you agree with Richard Harisson:
"At the open circuited ends of a resonant antenna there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
dorward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field."
S*

Standing waves
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Richard Fry wrote:
At the top of a monopole, and at the ends
of a dipole the net current is almost zero -- so those locations
generate very little of the total EM radiation from these antennas.

Since the forward current and reflected current are equal
in magnitude and opposite in phase at the ends, they act
like transmission line currents and the magnetic fields
cancel at the ends. They are in phase at the feedpoint -
hence the maximum radiation at that point.

EM means elecro- magnetic. Radiation can start from any of them, See what
Richard Harrison wrote: "At the open circuited ends of a resonant antenna
there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
dorward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field."
S*

Standing waves
 

"tom"
. net...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

God forbid that you should actually do some research! What a terrible
thought!

All necessary resarch are done by radio people. You all know how antennas
work. Monopole and dipole means the electric pole because no magnetic poles.
You only do not realize that EM waves can start from the ELECRIC field. The
electric field is radiated from the ends where is high voltage and no
current.
S*

Standing waves
 

On Sep 21, 12:23*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
You only do not realize that EM waves can start from the ELECRIC field. The
electric field is radiated from the ends where is high voltage and no
current.

No, Szczepan, it is you that does not realize that voltage, alone,
cannot produce an electromagnetic field.

Only the change in current and charge flowing along a conductor, over
time, produces far-field EM radiation. That radiation includes both
the magnetic and electric fields, at right angles to each other and to
the direction of travel.

It is untrue that one part of a conductor or antenna radiates the
magnetic field, and another part radiates the electric field, no
matter the claims of the proponents of the E-H antenna (which have not
been demonstrated).

The fact that the ends of a dipole, and the top of a monopole have
very little net current flowing means that those locations cannot
contribute very much to the EM radiation from those antennas.

You really should form your opinions from research in modern textbooks
on antennas, rather than using Wikipedia and inapplicable analogies to
sound waves. At a minimum you could recognize the quotes from them on
this subject that already have been posted here.

RF

Standing waves
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...

I won't wait for that obvious failure. This is several steps above
your pay-grade. So, you should really attempt to work on first
principles rather than rummaging in the attic for impressive artifacts
of science.

And what should do Richard Harrison who wrote: "At the open circuited ends
of a resonant antenna there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
dorward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field. "
S*


What Richard wrote is correct, if written in a slightly provocative manner
(deliberately?). But he wasn't stating that the electric field 'At the
open-circuited ends of a resonant antenna' passes energy into a radiated
radio wave. The energy that makes it that far (i.e. isn't radiated on
account of current in the element) is stored temporarily in an
'electrostatic' field which is one of several 'reactive' or 'induction'
field components that surround a dipole antenna and decay with distance much
faster than the radiation field components (i.e. those that make up a radio
wave). As I've noted before, the term 'electrostatic' should not be
interpreted literally as an unchanging field - it is used to differentiate
between the reactive components and the radiation components of electric
field - if this offends you, just call it a 'reactive' component of electric
field. This stored energy is passed back into the antenna during the
following RF quarter cycle.

And guess what ... one of the reactive field components is longitudinal!

.... but it isn't part of a radio wave - both parts of a radio wave, the
magnetic field and the attendant electric field, are directed transverse to
the direction of propagation, but now I'm repeating myself from a week or
more ago. Power cannot be abstracted from the reactive fields, including
the longitudinal one; they affect the imaginary part of the terminal
impedance of the antenna.

Of course, I expect you will contradict all this but I still recommend that
you read a proper account of the fields around a dipole rather than making
up your own version. Since you appear to have a phobia of libraries, you
could buy a second-hand copy of Kraus, Antennas for only $15 online:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sear...nnas&x=55&y=10
and there are many, many other sources.

Failing that, you could always search the web for a bootleg copy, or one of
the MIT Radiation Laboratory series of books. I don't condone bootlegging
but someone in another newsgroup recently gave a link to a collection of
illegal copies and, in the hope of ending these ridiculous arguments, I'll
pass on what he wrote:
http://cer.ucsd.edu/~james/notes/MIT...diation%20Lab/

Chris

Standing waves
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Richard Fry wrote:
At the top of a monopole, and at the ends
of a dipole the net current is almost zero -- so those locations
generate very little of the total EM radiation from these antennas.

Since the forward current and reflected current are equal
in magnitude and opposite in phase at the ends, they act
like transmission line currents and the magnetic fields
cancel at the ends. They are in phase at the feedpoint -
hence the maximum radiation at that point.

EM means elecro- magnetic. Radiation can start from any of them, See what
Richard Harrison wrote: "At the open circuited ends of a resonant antenna
there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
dorward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field."
S*


See my post earlier in this thread. You are misinterpreting what Richard
Harrison wrote to suit your own, incorrect, made-up version of how antennas
work.

Please think on this, Szczepan Bia³ek: the likelihood that your personal
version of the physics is correct is vanishingly small - when it conflicts
with the version everyone else (except perhaps Art Unwin) appears to
understand from their education, which is derived from the basis for
antennas that have been in use for more than 100 years.

Chris

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote
Since the forward current and reflected current are equal
in magnitude and opposite in phase at the ends, they act
like transmission line currents and the magnetic fields
cancel at the ends. They are in phase at the feedpoint -
hence the maximum radiation at that point.

See what Richard Harrison wrote:
"At the open circuited ends of a resonant
antenna there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
forward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field."

What I wrote agrees with what Richard H. wrote and vice versa.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:53:15 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

And what should do Richard Harrison who wrote

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of your swampy
metaphor - EXCEPT to demonstrate its stagnation into a cesspool by
being completely ignored by you.

It's amusing to see you wading out there tho'. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
The electric field is radiated from the ends where is
high voltage and no current.

An individual photon is emitted by an individual
decelerating free electron complete with a
self-contained electric and magnetic field.
It is impossible for the electric field of
a single particular photon to originate 1/4WL
away from the origin of the magnetic field.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

On Sep 21, 12:23Â*pm, Szczepan BiaÅ‚ek wrote:
Â*"tom" news:4ab41e80$0$42842$8046368 ...

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

God forbid that you should actually do some research! Â*What a terrible
thought!

All necessary resarch are done by radio people. You all know how antennas
work. Monopole and dipole means the electric pole because no magnetic poles.
You only do not realize that EM waves can start from the ELECRIC field. The
electric field is radiated from the ends where is high voltage and no
current.
S*

S*
These guys are not helping you! What they are doing is using you for
cannon fodder.
Try looking at things my way. You know that when a time varying
current is applied to a radiator that it also supports a reacting
current with spin, known as as an Eddy current
You also know that the current applied produces a electrical field and
a magnetic field that interchange energy between each other in the
form of a tank circuit.
Now look at the sequence of actions.We do know that the Eddy current
produces a lifting force and a spin force and we also know that there
is a electro static field surrounding the radiator. First we must
recognise that particles encapsulate the whole radiator but can be
individually lifted from the radiator with spin applied a short
distance. At this point it enters the electrostatic field around the
radiator where at the same time the generated magnetic field is
intersecting the electrostatic field. The moment that the lifted
particle enters the electro static field mix it is subjected to a
accelarating force exactly the same way as a electron in a CRT is
impacted upon. If you refer to the actions within a electron tube you
will note that the electrostatic field offsets the direction of the
accellerated particle into an exiting parabolic direction. The
combined fields will only accelerate the particle while it is within
the electrostatic field proper, after which it has a straight line
projection with spin. The time that it is within the electrostatic
field is the total accelerating time ie Newtons law 1/2 ft sqd.
The acceleration imparted to the particle happens to be the speed of
light which implies that this particle is able to emit light. If you
have difficulty then read up on the CRT.
As a point of interest the Eddy current itself must be balanced by an
equal and opposite force per Newton and if we look at it in boundary
terms we see that the opposing force is the combination of Gravity and
the rotation of the Earth. What this shows is that the particle has
spin and accelleration where the vector associated with Gravity is now
neutralized such that it retains its straight line action with spin
as it traverses the boundaries of the Earth Another thing of
importance is that Newtons laws are based on the condition of mass
where the particle becomes an excellent fit as opposed to a field or a
wave.
Back to the radiator itself. If it is a full wave length then it is a
closed circuit of the tank circuit form. If a radiator is less than a
wave length then yes, charges will form at the end of a radiator but
is hampered from further movement by the opposing impedance of the
environment. The charges will still leak but with out a spinning
action it will remain in the near field. Ofcourse changing the
environment will give an instantaneus charge in a spark form because
as an open circuit it always searches for the closed circuit function.
Regards
Art

Standing waves
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 21, 12:23 pm, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"tom"
news:4ab41e80$0$42842$8046368 ...

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

God forbid that you should actually do some research! What a terrible
thought!

All necessary resarch are done by radio people. You all know how antennas
work. Monopole and dipole means the electric pole because no magnetic
poles.
You only do not realize that EM waves can start from the ELECRIC field.
The
electric field is radiated from the ends where is high voltage and no
current.
S*

S*
These guys are not helping you! What they are doing is using you for
cannon fodder.
Try looking at things my way. You know that when a time varying
current is applied to a radiator that it also supports a reacting
current with spin, known as as an Eddy current
You also know that the current applied produces a electrical field and
a magnetic field that interchange energy between each other in the
form of a tank circuit.
Now look at the sequence of actions.We do know that the Eddy current
produces a lifting force and a spin force and we also know that there
is a electro static field surrounding the radiator. First we must
recognise that particles encapsulate the whole radiator but can be
individually lifted from the radiator with spin applied a short
distance. At this point it enters the electrostatic field around the
radiator where at the same time the generated magnetic field is
intersecting the electrostatic field. The moment that the lifted
particle enters the electro static field mix it is subjected to a
accelarating force exactly the same way as a electron in a CRT is
impacted upon. If you refer to the actions within a electron tube you
will note that the electrostatic field offsets the direction of the
accellerated particle into an exiting parabolic direction. The
combined fields will only accelerate the particle while it is within
the electrostatic field proper, after which it has a straight line
projection with spin. The time that it is within the electrostatic
field is the total accelerating time ie Newtons law 1/2 ft sqd.
The acceleration imparted to the particle happens to be the speed of
light which implies that this particle is able to emit light. If you
have difficulty then read up on the CRT.
As a point of interest the Eddy current itself must be balanced by an
equal and opposite force per Newton and if we look at it in boundary
terms we see that the opposing force is the combination of Gravity and
the rotation of the Earth. What this shows is that the particle has
spin and accelleration where the vector associated with Gravity is now
neutralized such that it retains its straight line action with spin
as it traverses the boundaries of the Earth Another thing of
importance is that Newtons laws are based on the condition of mass
where the particle becomes an excellent fit as opposed to a field or a
wave.
Back to the radiator itself. If it is a full wave length then it is a
closed circuit of the tank circuit form. If a radiator is less than a
wave length then yes, charges will form at the end of a radiator but
is hampered from further movement by the opposing impedance of the
environment. The charges will still leak but with out a spinning
action it will remain in the near field. Ofcourse changing the
environment will give an instantaneus charge in a spark form because
as an open circuit it always searches for the closed circuit function.
Regards
Art


That's hilarious!

We're not using Mr. Bialek as 'cannon fodder' - he is presenting himself as
cannon fodder voluntarily and he has the power to stop this happening. The
same applies to you. But the concept of him looking at things your way is
akin to a nun on a clowns head.

Eddy currents are not named after someone called Eddy and the speed of light
is a speed so it cannot be an amount of acceleration. Any takers for the
other faux pas?

Chris

Standing waves
 

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:19:22 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:


"Art Unwin" wrote in message
the Eddy current itself must be balanced by an
equal and opposite force

Eddy currents are not named after someone called Eddy and the speed of light
is a speed so it cannot be an amount of acceleration. Any takers for the
other faux pas?

I can imagine an Uncle Eddy, but for equal and opposite - Auntie Eddy?

If an eddy circulates in one direction (maintaining the hydrological
metaphor of Stefan's) Auntie Eddy must run opposite. So now the Art
of Antenna Bris finds itself in a backwash.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

On Sep 21, 3:33*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
S*
These guys are not helping you! What they are doing is using you for
cannon fodder. Try looking at things my way. major snip

Interesting how Art Unwin has tried to hijack this thread into yet
another pulpit of his for those willing to believe his bizarre, and
unprovable concepts about antenna theory and performance.

RF

Standing waves
 

On Sep 21, 4:19*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 12:23 pm, Szczepan Bialek wrote:



"tom"
news:4ab41e80$0$42842$8046368 ...

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

God forbid that you should actually do some research! What a terrible
thought!

All necessary resarch are done by radio people. You all know how antennas
work. Monopole and dipole means the electric pole because no magnetic
poles.
You only do not realize that EM waves can start from the ELECRIC field.
The
electric field is radiated from the ends where is high voltage and no
current.
S*

S*
These guys are not helping you! What they are doing is using you for
cannon fodder.
Try looking at things my way. You know that when a time varying
current is applied to a radiator that it also supports a reacting
current with spin, known as as an Eddy current
You also know that the current applied produces a electrical field and
a magnetic field that interchange energy between each other in the
form of a tank circuit.
Now look at the sequence of actions.We do know that the Eddy current
produces a lifting force and a spin force and we also know that there
is a electro static field surrounding the radiator. First we must
recognise that particles encapsulate the whole radiator but can be
individually lifted from the radiator with spin applied a short
distance. At this point it enters the electrostatic field around the
radiator where at the same time the generated magnetic field is
intersecting the electrostatic field. The moment that the lifted
particle enters the electro static field mix it is subjected to a
accelarating force exactly the same way as a electron in a CRT is
impacted upon. If you refer to the actions within a electron tube you
will note that the electrostatic field offsets the direction of the
accellerated particle into an exiting parabolic direction. The
combined fields will only accelerate the particle while it is within
the electrostatic field proper, after which it has a straight line
projection with spin. The time that it is within the electrostatic
field is the total accelerating time ie Newtons law 1/2 ft sqd.
The acceleration imparted to the particle happens to be the speed of
light which implies that this particle is able to emit light. If you
have difficulty then read up on the CRT.
As a point of interest the Eddy current itself must be balanced by an
equal and opposite force per Newton and if we look at it in boundary
terms we see that the opposing force is the combination of Gravity and
the rotation of the Earth. What this shows is that the particle has
spin and accelleration where the vector associated with Gravity is now
neutralized such that it retains its straight line action with spin
as it traverses the boundaries of the Earth Another thing of
importance is that Newtons laws are based on the condition of mass
where the particle becomes an excellent fit as opposed to a field or a
wave.
*Back to the radiator itself. If it is a full wave length then it is a
closed circuit of the tank circuit form. If a radiator is less than a
wave length then yes, charges will form at the end of a radiator but
is hampered from further movement by the opposing impedance of the
environment. The charges will still leak but with out a spinning
action it will remain in the near field. Ofcourse changing the
environment will give an instantaneus charge in a spark form because
as an open circuit it always searches for the closed circuit function.
Regards
Art

That's hilarious!

We're not using Mr. Bialek as 'cannon fodder' - he is presenting himself as
cannon fodder voluntarily and he has the power to stop this happening. *The
same applies to you. *But the concept of him looking at things your way is
akin to a nun on a clowns head.

Eddy currents are not named after someone called Eddy and the speed of light
is a speed so it cannot be an amount of acceleration. *Any takers for the
other faux pas?

Chris

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

Standing waves
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message

In the Gas Analogy the monopole antena is exactly like the Kundt's
tube.

Heaviside did the Hydraulic Analogy. All is exactly the same like in the
fluids mechanics.
Next the electrons were discovered. Automatically Heaviside is a history
and the Gas Analogy is in power.

But you, radio people, are very close to waves and should be easy for
you to work out the answer for the Question:
Which Analogy is right?

neither analogy is 'right'. they are useful in limited circumstances to
demonstrate some basic pressure wave physics to young students. but
neither one properly reproduces electromagnetic waves.

"electromagnetic waves" are paper waves. Radio waves are real waves. Now
we must not know what the waves are like. Now we should estabilish from
which part of the radiator radiate the radio waves.
Do you agree with Richard Harisson:
"At the open circuited ends of a resonant antenna there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
dorward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field."
S*


we know what they are like, you just have to understand the mathematics.
and yes, richard's statements are true, but a bit too restrictive, it
doesn't HAVE to be resonant. Voltage doubles and current=0 at the end of
any wire fed with a time varying current, it doesn't even have to be a sine
wave... note the effect of sending square waves from a time domain
reflectometer down an open circuited wire.

Standing waves
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.


* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on, by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. Kraus, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris