What exactly is radio
 

On Apr 30, 9:22*pm, tom wrote:
It is accepted that radiation is "an acceleration that generates or
transfers a charge ". This is an empty statement if one cannot explain
the mechanics of the operation.Certainly you have to determine what
you have in hand to provide this action, and at the present time there
is no agreement whether it is a wave flow of a constituent, what ever
that may be, or a particle.
Therefore one has to determine exactly what we are going to accelerate
and how we are going to avoid the effects of gravity since radiation
does not follow the action of a descending lob.
* * *This as yet has not been determined, so we cannot begin to
understand! For me I see a wave as being an adjective and a particle
as a noun.
But a word of warning,physicists do not follow the same rules of the
general public, so if you have a day or two to spare get a physicist
to explain exactly what a 'wave' is and how does it fit with the
required straight line accelerating trajectory that opposes gravity!
You just cannot explain "radio" until you determine what you are
accelerating and how.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art

You are really good, Art. *How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. *Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. *How do you continue to
make almost no sense? *That's really tough. *I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
In other words I can act on a full picture made of jigsaw parts but
not a partial picture. Therefore one must deal with fully melded and
interacting parts that are consistant to reality. Thus I adhere to
classical physics and factual observances or laws without straying
from the path I have chosen from interconnecting parts.
Quantum theory is based on probabilities and associated math. Any body
who has been to the race track knows that this form of thinking has
its fallacies thus probabilities has moved towards string theory. I
stick to classical physics as they have a history of success with the
laws that they have established but unfortunately physicists have
corrupted the language of observances. For instance we had a
discussion on Leptons, colour etc. Physicists recognise that colour as
the rest of the world knows it as a means of separation of its
observed actions instead of labelling it lepton1 or lepton 2.Same goes
for hadrons, they actually could be a single type particle but
physicists label them by the action that they exhibit on observance.
Why do you think that the idea of a mad scientist hangs on to this
day. They did similar things with respect to waves which in their
world has nothing to do with water, tides e.t.c.
So for me there is merit in sticking to points raised by classical
physics since they are tried and true
under examination and have not exploded by categerizing particles by a
particular observation.
After all, both a dog and a cat have a tail they can wag but the real
world can have the same observation of different entitiesand vica
versa.
What I desire the most is for somebody to challenge my statements
based on documented observations and laws bearing in mind that the
written word comes after factual examination and not before.As yet
nobody has pointed out a fallacy that is in conflict with presently
known laws, and I mean nobody. If there is a conflict then I will
discard all. But remember, I do not make computer programs on
radiators but they all confirm the presence of particles and
equilibrium and I have had no way of manipulating that to conform to
my thinking. They show that maximum radiation is obtained when
material resistance drops to zero and radiation rises to a maximum via
current flow outside the member to elevate particles at rest on the
surface. I couldn't possibly string some thing like that as a joke or
by not taking my medicine.

What exactly is radio
 

On 4/30/2010 10:17 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:22 pm, wrote:
It is accepted that radiation is "an acceleration that generates or
transfers a charge ". This is an empty statement if one cannot explain
the mechanics of the operation.Certainly you have to determine what
you have in hand to provide this action, and at the present time there
is no agreement whether it is a wave flow of a constituent, what ever
that may be, or a particle.
Therefore one has to determine exactly what we are going to accelerate
and how we are going to avoid the effects of gravity since radiation
does not follow the action of a descending lob.
This as yet has not been determined, so we cannot begin to
understand! For me I see a wave as being an adjective and a particle
as a noun.
But a word of warning,physicists do not follow the same rules of the
general public, so if you have a day or two to spare get a physicist
to explain exactly what a 'wave' is and how does it fit with the
required straight line accelerating trajectory that opposes gravity!
You just cannot explain "radio" until you determine what you are
accelerating and how.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art

You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
In other words I can act on a full picture made of jigsaw parts but
not a partial picture. Therefore one must deal with fully melded and
interacting parts that are consistant to reality. Thus I adhere to
classical physics and factual observances or laws without straying
from the path I have chosen from interconnecting parts.
Quantum theory is based on probabilities and associated math. Any body
who has been to the race track knows that this form of thinking has
its fallacies thus probabilities has moved towards string theory. I
stick to classical physics as they have a history of success with the
laws that they have established but unfortunately physicists have
corrupted the language of observances. For instance we had a
discussion on Leptons, colour etc. Physicists recognise that colour as
the rest of the world knows it as a means of separation of its
observed actions instead of labelling it lepton1 or lepton 2.Same goes
for hadrons, they actually could be a single type particle but
physicists label them by the action that they exhibit on observance.
Why do you think that the idea of a mad scientist hangs on to this
day. They did similar things with respect to waves which in their
world has nothing to do with water, tides e.t.c.
So for me there is merit in sticking to points raised by classical
physics since they are tried and true
under examination and have not exploded by categerizing particles by a
particular observation.
After all, both a dog and a cat have a tail they can wag but the real
world can have the same observation of different entitiesand vica
versa.
What I desire the most is for somebody to challenge my statements
based on documented observations and laws bearing in mind that the
written word comes after factual examination and not before.

snip

I couldn't possibly string some thing like that as a joke or
by not taking my medicine.

Ok, I'm sure that you are the expert on that subject.

Who could argue how sane you always seem to be.

tom
K0TAR

What exactly is radio
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in
:

The time phase angle between E and H is determined by the medium the
wave is propagating through. The (complex) ratio of E to H is called
the intrinsic impedance of the medium, and for lossless media, it's
always a purely real number (about 377 ohms for air or free space),
meaning that E and H are in phase. Only when propagating through a
lossy medium are E and H not in time phase, and then the maximum phase
difference is always less than 45 degrees.

If I understand this correctly, a field arrangement with E and H in time
and space quadrature is not propagating energy, but rather energy
exchange.

I believe that's correct, but there's no medium in which that would take
place -- with a plane wave at least.

In very close to an antenna, the time phase relationship of E and H may
be close to quadrature due to the inductive or reactive field close to
the conductors, but that changes eventually to 'in-phase' in the far
radiation field in free space (as the induction field components decay
more quickly with distance than the radiation field components).

If that is the case, the complex value of E/H varies from very close to
the far field. I have seen plots of E/H vs distance that treated E/H as a
real number, but I suspect that it is more complex when all of the
components of E and H are included.

Thoughts?

Yes, E/H varies a great deal in both magnitude and phase in the near
field. The intrinsic Z describes only the E/H ratio of a plane wave
propagating in the far field. This can be easily investigated with NEC,
EZNEC, or any modeling program that provides near field results.

Incidentally, the physical orientation of E and H, and I believe their
time phase, can be quite different when bounded by conductors as in a
waveguide.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

What exactly is radio
 

U¿ytkownik "Peter" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
I'm preparing an article for a local radio club magazine about the nature
of radio and electromagnetic radiation in general. While this is a non
mathematical and general descriptive treatment of the subject it is a
challenge to make it clear and consistent.
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/radio.htm

Thank you for your time.

You wrote:
"I begin to appreciate a comment made by a fellow radio amateur and
technician that antenna theory was 15% science and 85% black magic! "

But in your paper is 85% of science.

Next you wrote:
"Figure 2-3 is a simple picture of an E field detaching itself from an
antenna. (The H field will not be considered, although it is present.) In
view A the voltage is maximum and the electric field has maximum intensity.
"

That is all. Radio waves are simply the alternate electric field. You should
add only that in the and of the dipole the voltage is doubled (at least).

At the end you wrote:
"For myself, I like the humbling fact that despite building our modern
technology and economy to large degree on the manipulation of electro
magnetic radiation; when it comes to understanding exactly what in fact it
is, there still remains some uncertainty and mystery!"

Not always it was a mistery. In the radio history the radio waves were
always the electric waves.
Maxwell's hypothezis (EM) was a proposition for the transverse waves (to
explain the light polarization).

Now we can produce polarized or not polarized electric waves (by proper
arranged polarity).
Polarized light is emmited from dipoles. In nature no monopoles.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On Apr 30, 4:14*am, "Peter" wrote:
I'm preparing an article for a local radio club magazine about the nature of
radio and electromagnetic radiation in general. While this is a non
mathematical and general descriptive treatment of the subject it is a
challenge to make it clear and consistent.
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/radio.htm

Thank you for your time.

Regards Peter VK6YSF

Peter, the moment you deviate from the ARRL version of intersecting
fields and refer to waves is when you are going to lose your audience.
Maxwell specifically refers only to two properties inductive and
capacitive both of which can be seen as fields.
ARRL then states that these two fields interact at right angles to
each other which is an interaction of current flow ACROSS a capacitor
which is created by the displacement current. Note that waves are not
even being mentioned. This is exactly the mechanism of a particle in a
crt where the particle collides with a screen and the point it
interacts with the screen is governed by two vectors. The only
difference between radio and the crt beam is that
tho both beams are particles , rotating modulation is only imprinted
on the particles occillations or "spin" to form a information carrier
for radio purposes. It is still a closed tank circuit which is the
propelling engine at the end of all transmitters, except in the
radiation cases the closed circuit crosses over itself by passing
sideways thru a capacitor created in the form of a eddy current
created by the reactionary displacement current flow
The idea of using the "wave" term is a carry over from the old days
where the aether was viewed as a viscous soup which has now been
discarded and replaced by a cloud of free electrons swerling around
looking for a diamagnetic place to rest and where the volume of
electrons is more than the available places to rest. Why a diamagnetic
place to rest? Because diamagnetic means that there is no residual
magnetic content within the resting place medium.
So Peter, your audience can align visually with the idea of a crt
and a beam created by a combination of capacitance and inductance
which provides a straight line trajectory which is a central part of
radio, and gets away from a viscous
water wave movement that does nothing to infer a straight line
projection or the energy sinosoidal interaction created by a tank
circuit or indeed a pendulum.

What exactly is radio
 

On Apr 30, 5:14*am, "Peter" wrote:
I'm preparing an article for a local radio club magazine about the nature of
radio and electromagnetic radiation in general. While this is a non
mathematical and general descriptive treatment of the subject it is a
challenge to make it clear and consistent.
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/radio.htm

Thank you for your time.

Regards Peter VK6YSF

Albert Einstein is frequently quoted saying: "The wireless telegraph
is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very
long cat. You pull
the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the
same,
only without the cat."

What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Apr 30, 5:14 am, "Peter" wrote:
I'm preparing an article for a local radio club magazine about the nature
of
radio and electromagnetic radiation in general. While this is a non
mathematical and general descriptive treatment of the subject it is a
challenge to make it clear and consistent.
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/radio.htm

Thank you for your time.

Regards Peter VK6YSF

Albert Einstein is frequently quoted saying: "The wireless telegraph
is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very
long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles.

Here is the drawing of the cat:
http://library.thinkquest.org/18160/electriceasy.htm

The wireless is the same, only without the cat."

There is a small difference. If instant of the cat (wire) is an insulator
(aether) in it flows the displacement current. The current is strong when
the capacitance and the frequency is big. It is easy to achive the huge
frequency but for this you must use the modulation.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

Peter wrote:
"----- it is a challenge to make it clear and consistent."

For me. no one does a better job than Dr. Frederick Emmons Terman who
wrote on page 1 of "Electronics and Radio Engineering":
"Electrical energy that has escaped into free space is in the form of
electromagnetic waves. These waves, which are commonly called radio
waves, travel with the velocity of light and donsist of magnetic and
electric hields that are at right angles to each other and also at right
angles to the direction of travel."

The rest is in the book which should be consulted for a complete
definition.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZ5

What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "Richard Harrison" napisal w
wiadomosci ...
Peter wrote:
"----- it is a challenge to make it clear and consistent."

For me. no one does a better job than Dr. Frederick Emmons Terman who
wrote on page 1 of "Electronics and Radio Engineering":
"Electrical energy that has escaped into free space is in the form of
electromagnetic waves. These waves, which are commonly called radio
waves, travel with the velocity of light and donsist of magnetic and
electric hields that are at right angles to each other and also at right
angles to the direction of travel."

The rest is in the book which should be consulted for a complete
definition.

Maxwell proposed EM to explain the polarization of light.
Now the radio waves are or are not polarized.

Wiki wrote: " FM radio
The term "circular polarization" is often used erroneously to describe mixed
polarity signals used mostly in FM radio (87.5 to 108.0 MHz), where a
vertical and a horizontal component are propagated simultaneously by a
single or a combined array. This has the effect of producing greater
penetration into buildings and difficult reception areas than a signal with
just one plane of polarization. This would be an instance where the
polarization would more appropriately be called random polarization (or
simply unpolarized). See Stokes parameters."

Why "erroneously"?

Are the radio waves different than light?

S*



Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZ5

What exactly is radio
 

Sz. Bialek wrote:
"Are the radio waves different than light?"

Yes, as light waves are much higher in frequency than radio waves but,
in most ways they are identical. As an example, cross-polarized
receptors for both light and radio waves suffer greatly in receptivity.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI