Pat wrote:
"To the OP, heat is not electromagnetic radiation."

Physics books disagree with Pat. Henry Semat, Ph.D. wrote on page 327 of
"Fundamentals of Physics":
"The transfer of heat by the process of radiation need not involve the
use of material media. An outstanding example is radiation of energy
from the sun to the earth: by far the greatest part of space between
these two bodies is a very good vacuum. The fadiant energy consists of
electromagnetic waves which travel with the speed of light, about
186,000 miles per second."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:30:26 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

"To the OP, heat is not electromagnetic radiation."

Physics books disagree with Pat.

Hi Richard,

The discussion of heat is more a metaphysical concept because it is
confused by our senses.

Entropy demands that everything inexorably cools by dissipating its
energy (heat) into the void of cold space. Hence, everything radiates
(and yet we spend very little time writing about it, except for Art).
A good deal of this entropic radiation is like waiting an infinite
time for a circuit with infinite-1 Q to stop ringing.

The sun burns bright in the cosmos, but the greater part of the cosmos
is unheated by the sun even though all of the cosmos is illuminated
(radiated) by the sun.

Direct observation 1: Put two plates out in the noon sun but
undisturbed by the motion of air. One plate of metal, the other of
glass. Which gets hotter? Same amount of radiation from a known heat
source, but clearly different results in heat.

Direct observation 2: Shine (radiate) an IR LED onto the back of your
hand, or onto your forehead (an excellent heat detector). What do you
feel? At some IR wavelengths, your head is as translucent as an
architectural glass brick.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Richard,

The discussion of heat is more a metaphysical concept because it is
confused by our senses.

Entropy demands that everything inexorably cools by dissipating its
energy (heat) into the void of cold space. Hence, everything radiates
(and yet we spend very little time writing about it, except for Art).
A good deal of this entropic radiation is like waiting an infinite
time for a circuit with infinite-1 Q to stop ringing.

The sun burns bright in the cosmos, but the greater part of the cosmos
is unheated by the sun even though all of the cosmos is illuminated
(radiated) by the sun.

Direct observation 1: Put two plates out in the noon sun but
undisturbed by the motion of air. One plate of metal, the other of
glass. Which gets hotter? Same amount of radiation from a known heat
source, but clearly different results in heat. . .

This illustrates a classical confusion between heat and temperature,
probably aggravated by our use of "hot" as a description of temperature
rather than heat. Heat is energy. Absorption or transfer of heat results
in a change in temperature. "Hot" (high temperature) objects radiate
more heat than cold objects. The more heat an object, such as a plate,
absorbs, the higher its temperature. Once this basic distinction is
clear, a lot of the mystery disappears.

There are, of course, other mechanisms of heat transfer other than
radiation, namely convection and conduction. But heat transfer has the
same effect on temperature regardless of the mechanism.

When doing experiments with the sun's rays, you sometimes get
non-intuitive results, because there's a lot of energy (heat) at
wavelengths we can't see, particularly at the ultraviolet end. The
reflective or absorptive properties of an object aren't necessarily the
same at infrared or ultraviolet wavelengths as they are at visible
wavelengths. For an example, you can't see the difference in my skin
when coated with sun block or not. But there's sure a difference in
energy (heat) absorption!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:14:28 +0800, "Peter" wrote:

While this is a non
mathematical and general descriptive treatment of the subject it is a
challenge to make it clear and consistent.

Hi Peter,

Yes, your treatment does tend to veer towards the exotic topics.

Stick to the basics. You have a wonderful resource that you point to
in the Navy training manuals. As a former instructor for the Navy's
Electronic Technician A and C schools, I can attest this material
manages the balance between technical and theoretical.

You may notice that the first manual introduces the concept of
photons, but no where goes into "duality." And for good reason, it
doesn't matter one whit. When you raise this concept, the weaker
participants of your audience would then think about solar particles
in competition with solar radiation (light, largely). They would
probably miss the vast difference in propagation speed.

Solar radiation, of course, travels at the speed of light. This is
why it is called radiation. Solar particles (the erroneous dual to
the photon) travels at less than 1% of the speed of light. If any of
your audience were to simply consider their final's tubes, within that
glass enclosure, electrons travel at 90% of the speed of light.
Dribble a little air into that vacuum tube, and the speed of any
electron would plummet to inches per hour.

So, what value is there in opening that can of worms?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Apr 30, 12:59*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:14:28 +0800, "Peter" wrote:
While this is a non
mathematical and general descriptive treatment of the subject it is a
challenge to make it clear and consistent.

Hi Peter,

Yes, your treatment does tend to veer towards the exotic topics.

Stick to the basics. *You have a wonderful resource that you point to
in the Navy training manuals. *As a former instructor for the Navy's
Electronic Technician A and C schools, I can attest this material
manages the balance between technical and theoretical.

You may notice that the first manual introduces the concept of
photons, but no where goes into "duality." *And for good reason, it
doesn't matter one whit. *When you raise this concept, the weaker
participants of your audience would then think about solar particles
in competition with solar radiation (light, largely). *They would
probably miss the vast difference in propagation speed.

Solar radiation, of course, travels at the speed of light. *This is
why it is called radiation. *Solar particles (the erroneous dual to
the photon) travels at less than 1% of the speed of light. *If any of
your audience were to simply consider their final's tubes, within that
glass enclosure, electrons travel at 90% of the speed of light.
Dribble a little air into that vacuum tube, and the speed of any
electron would plummet to inches per hour.

So, what value is there in opening that can of worms?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Obviously a problem here! Quantum mechanics states radio rotates
around particles and classical physics revolves about waves. If
radiation is an acceleration of charge then it is pivotable that one
decides what is being accelerated in the first place!
If Einstein is correct that the speed of light is not to be exceeded
then one has to decide whether a wave is lighter than the smallest
particle possible.
Waves do have length a physicist would say where as a particle can be
a point! How we get straight line trajectory while gravity is present
is easily solved. Pysicists have now removed gravity from the Standard
Model to get over that problem.The Navy on the other hand ignores the
duallity question.

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*

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.

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."

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*

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