Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
On May 21, 1:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Alternate electric field from the ends of the dipole kicks the electrons in the space and they oscillate (longitudinal electric waves). How much I^2*R loss is there in the plasma conductors of free space? How far into space does the electron plasma effect extend? If electrons can flow from a cold aluminum element in a vacuum, why does a vacuum tube need a special heated cathode? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
"Cecil Moore" wrote ... On May 21, 1:07 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Alternate electric field from the ends of the dipole kicks the electrons in the space and they oscillate (longitudinal electric waves). How much I^2*R loss is there in the plasma conductors of free space? Oscillations are not travelling. Loss are only when something travel between obstacles. How far into space does the electron plasma effect extend? As far as light do. If electrons can flow from a cold aluminum element in a vacuum, why does a vacuum tube need a special heated cathode? Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 6:49*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Cecil Moore" ... On May 21, 1:07 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Alternate electric field from the ends of the dipole kicks the electrons in the space and they oscillate (longitudinal electric waves). How much I^2*R loss is there in the plasma conductors of free space? Oscillations are not travelling. Loss are only when something travel between obstacles. How far into space does the electron plasma effect extend? As far as light do. If electrons can flow from a cold aluminum element in a vacuum, why does a vacuum tube need a special heated cathode? Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. and the longer it operates the higher the charge. unfortunately this is not the case, antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. and the longer it operates the higher the charge. unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably trying to do the new. The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis the teachers adopt to teaching. S* |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 1:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. *and the longer it operates the higher the charge. *unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably trying to do the new. The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis the teachers adopt to teaching. S* Because of comments made I decided to abandon the idea of increasing the diameter of the dipole which really is a bit off the wall and decided instead to change frequency applied to obtain a low to near zero impedance. This approach did not result in a truly spherical radiation pattern and nor did it remove vortices ! The pattern when cut always revealed a figure 8 somewhere. Never the less, peak gain produced by the program always produced a larger volume pattern when impedance was a minimum. This certainly implies that because of the loss of skin the element impedance was lowered and thus the radiation would increase. Of course it depends on the observer to interprete observations where others may well differ.( A sure certainty in this group) I am beginning to see an analogy between radiation elements and water, where water being diamagnetic would attract particles. Looking at it in radiating terms, the current would flow within the intersection point outside the water and propel the individual particles from or part of the skin which really is an encapsulation surface of a material other than water. Since mass inside the boundary does not change because of instant replacement the boundary mathematical approach would still hold. Of course, if the skin was actually made of particles the addition of soap to the radiator surface would render it immune to radiation if bubbles were not created thus leaving a diminishing surface area of broken skin.Hopefully I have supplied enough material to anger those who are sure they know all about radiation and thus provoke them to finally declare exactly what is happening in a scientific manner ala details, details,details Regards Art |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 8:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 22, 1:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. *and the longer it operates the higher the charge. *unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably trying to do the new. The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis the teachers adopt to teaching. S* Because of comments made I decided to abandon the idea of increasing the diameter of the dipole which really is a bit off the wall and decided instead to change frequency applied to obtain a low to near zero impedance. This approach did not result in a truly spherical radiation pattern and nor did it remove vortices ! The pattern when cut always revealed a figure 8 somewhere. Never the less, peak gain produced by the program always produced a larger volume pattern when impedance was a minimum. This certainly implies that because of the loss of skin the element impedance was lowered and thus the radiation would increase. Of course it depends on the observer to interprete observations where others may well differ.( A sure certainty in this group) I am beginning to see an analogy between radiation elements and water, where water being diamagnetic would attract particles. Looking at it in radiating terms, the current would flow within the intersection point outside the water and propel the individual particles from or part of the skin which really is an encapsulation surface of a material other than water. Since mass inside the boundary does not change because of instant replacement the boundary mathematical approach would still hold. Of course, if the skin was actually made of particles the addition of soap to the radiator surface would render it immune to radiation if bubbles were not created thus leaving a diminishing surface area of broken skin.Hopefully I have supplied enough material to anger those who are sure they know all about radiation and thus provoke them to finally declare exactly what is happening in a scientific manner ala details, details,details Regards Art you really must chat with mr. b. now that you are talking about water waves you are both on the same 'wavelength' so to speak. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 6:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. *and the longer it operates the higher the charge. *unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably trying to do the new. The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis the teachers adopt to teaching. S* antennas do now have to be grounded. how are antennas on satellites grounded?? do satellites become massive positive charges in space as they keep shooting off electrons... again, this is going no where, when you have read another hundred years of science and are ready to believe what has been well proven over that time period maybe we can have a conversation. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
On May 22, 4:41*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 22, 8:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On May 22, 1:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ... On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is in form of sparks. The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood. Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical)) from a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not all come back. S* so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an antenna it should become positively charged. *and the longer it operates the higher the charge. *unfortunately this is not the case, Is antena grounded? All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively charged. The Earth closes the circuit. antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical levitating neutrinos like art prefers. I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably trying to do the new. The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis the teachers adopt to teaching. S* Because of comments made I decided to abandon the idea of increasing the diameter of the dipole which really is a bit off the wall and decided instead to change frequency applied to obtain a low to near zero impedance. This approach did not result in a truly spherical radiation pattern and nor did it remove vortices ! The pattern when cut always revealed a figure 8 somewhere. Never the less, peak gain produced by the program always produced a larger volume pattern when impedance was a minimum. This certainly implies that because of the loss of skin the element impedance was lowered and thus the radiation would increase. Of course it depends on the observer to interprete observations where others may well differ.( A sure certainty in this group) I am beginning to see an analogy between radiation elements and water, where water being diamagnetic would attract particles. Looking at it in radiating terms, the current would flow within the intersection point outside the water and propel the individual particles from or part of the skin which really is an encapsulation surface of a material other than water. Since mass inside the boundary does not change because of instant replacement the boundary mathematical approach would still hold. Of course, if the skin was actually made of particles the addition of soap to the radiator surface would render it immune to radiation if bubbles were not created thus leaving a diminishing surface area of broken skin.Hopefully I have supplied enough material to anger those who are sure they know all about radiation and thus provoke them to finally declare exactly what is happening in a scientific manner ala details, details,details Regards Art you really must chat with mr. b. *now that you are talking about water waves you are both on the same 'wavelength' so to speak. Is that a good example of what you call conversation? Waves and wavelength !!! Talk with Mister B? I would do that at a drop of the hat if the outcome was that you wouldn't engage me in conversation for a hundred years as you promised him. I left you a clue with respect to water and the collecting of Neutrinos but again I over estimated your interlect I don't think I can go much lower, you as a person has already hit rock bottom. Hey a question for you. Richard lives alone, so does Kotar .Possibly the other regular hacker also. Would I be correct that you also have to live alone as you seem to fit the standard model of driving people away? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
On 5/22/2010 3:01 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
I am beginning to see an analogy between radiation elements and water, where water being diamagnetic would attract particles. Looking at it in radiating terms, the current would flow within the intersection point outside the water and propel the individual particles from or part of the skin which really is an encapsulation surface of a material other than water. Since mass inside the boundary does not change because of instant replacement the boundary mathematical approach would still hold. Of course, if the skin was actually made of particles the addition of soap to the radiator surface would render it immune to radiation if bubbles were not created thus leaving a diminishing surface area of broken skin.Hopefully I have supplied enough material to anger those who are sure they know all about radiation and thus provoke them to finally declare exactly what is happening in a scientific manner ala details, details,details Regards Art Reminds me of a comment an engineer made to me in jest "We're making up **** as fast as we can!". And that's about all that needs to be said about Art's latest journey into fairyland. tom K0TAR |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Computer model experiment
On 5/22/2010 7:08 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
Is that a good example of what you call conversation? Waves and wavelength !!! Talk with Mister B? I would do that at a drop of the hat if the outcome was that you wouldn't engage me in conversation for a hundred years as you promised him. I left you a clue with respect to water and the collecting of Neutrinos but again I over estimated your interlect I don't think I can go much lower, you as a person has already hit rock bottom. Hey a question for you. Richard lives alone, so does Kotar .Possibly the other regular hacker also. Would I be correct that you also have to live alone as you seem to fit the standard model of driving people away? So desperation is setting in now. He is grasping at straws about which he has no knowledge. Let's try a similar useless tactic! Have you stopped beating your wife Art? tom K0TAR |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: Philbrick GAP/R Model K2-W Early Computer Tube Op-Amp | Boatanchors | |||
FA: Philbrick GAP/R Model K2-W Early Computer Tube Op-Amp | Boatanchors | |||
FA: Philbrick GAP/R Model K2-W Early Computer Tube Op-Amp | Boatanchors | |||
FA: Philbrick GAP/R Model K2-W Early Computer VacuumTube Op-Amp | Boatanchors | |||
FA: Radio Shack Model 100 laptop computer ++ | Equipment |