|
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 5, 9:57*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 5, 7:44*pm, Keith Dysart wrote: When, exactly, does the EM wave cease to exist? I don't know exactly but it will be when DC steady-state has been achieved, i.e. when electrons are no longer being accelerated or decelerated. More evasion. So are now saying there may indeed be an EM wave present with DC? Even with DC, the electrons are not moving with constant velocity but hop from atom to atom. Seems like acceleration and deceleration to me. ....Keith |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 5, 10:06*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:01*pm, Keith Dysart wrote: Map this to conservation of energy... Current is to power as charge is to energy. The relationship and utility is the same. So now you are pushing a conservation of current principle as well as a conservation of power principle? You can *destroy* the current and power with the flip of a switch. Can you destroy charge and energy? Good Grief! Maybe you should just start with Kirchoff's current law and understand what it says before following my suggestion to compare it with the conservation of energy law. You seem to have forgotten what you almost certainly once knew. Google will provide many adequate explanations. ....Keith |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"Keith Dysart" wrote ... On Jul 5, 9:57 pm, Cecil Moore wrote: On Jul 5, 7:44 pm, Keith Dysart wrote: When, exactly, does the EM wave cease to exist? I don't know exactly but it will be when DC steady-state has been achieved, i.e. when electrons are no longer being accelerated or decelerated. More evasion. So are now saying there may indeed be an EM wave present with DC? Not EM but the electric wave. In the free electron laser (halbach array) is DC and waves are produced. Even with DC, the electrons are not moving with constant velocity but hop from atom to atom. Seems like acceleration and deceleration to me. If the electron beam is periodically deflected the current is DC but the all works like the dipole. S* |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"Cecil Moore" wrote ... If electrons (carriers) are not being accelerated and/or decelerated, i.e. if DC steady-state exists, then there are no EM waves. You do not read my posts. In the free electron laser the DC steady-state exists and there are electric waves. "If the electron beam is periodically deflected the current is DC but the all works like the dipole." S* |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"K1TTT" wrote ... On Jul 5, 5:14 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Is is trouble with understanding that the all scientists work on plasma? Only students are in the solid aether. But they simply do not know that the famous equations describes such. Vectors describes the motions of something. Students should not be told what it is. Because the goal is math (field method) teaching. its too hot for this, i'm going for a swim... maybe some nice longitudinal waves in the water will make me feel better. Next time look at water waves with the Stokes eyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift They are more longitudinal than transversal. They transport the mass and the energy. S* |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 6, 2:02*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"If the electron beam is periodically deflected the current is DC but the all works like the dipole." I'm afraid "periodically deflected" violates the definition of steady- state. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"Cecil Moore" wrote ... On Jul 6, 2:02 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: "If the electron beam is periodically deflected the current is DC but the all works like the dipole." I'm afraid "periodically deflected" violates the definition of steady- state. In AC coulombs/s in one direction is not const In the DC is. In this sense in the free electronn laser is DC. S* |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote: what I do not know is how measure A and B oscillator to distinguish each other... :D I gave you that solution: multiply them. Very simple exercise available to anyone with sufficient bench equipment. Skip the quotes of undergraduate scribblers with little imagination that shrug their shoulders at their own failure. Humorous note: Richard Feynman do not share your dislike for analogies he compare corks in water with charged objects fields :) Feynman was a humorous fellow, but you are using undergrad texts instead of his - why? As I've already offered, drop all the frills and adornment and tell me what scale the source of your 80M problem exists at: 1. Subatomic, 2. Atomic, 3. Molecular. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 6 jul, 16:24, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: what I do not know is how measure A and B oscillator to distinguish each other... :D I gave you that solution: multiply them. *Very simple exercise available to anyone with sufficient bench equipment. *Skip the quotes of undergraduate scribblers with little imagination that shrug their shoulders at their own failure. Humorous note: Richard Feynman do not share your dislike for analogies he compare corks in water with charged objects fields :) Feynman was a humorous fellow, but you are using undergrad texts instead of his - why? As I've already offered, drop all the frills and adornment and tell me what scale the source of your 80M problem exists at: 1. *Subatomic, 2. *Atomic, 3. *Molecular. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hello Richard, good day. Thank you very much for your friendly company, I enjoyed this conversation but I think it is time to go back because it is leaning dangerously close to an eristic exercise :) I am sure we will have very interesting other things to talk about our common topic. Best regards Your friend Miguel |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 6, 12:17*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 5, 6:19*am, K1TTT wrote: On Jul 5, 1:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote: On Jul 1, 8:53*am, K1TTT wrote: On Jul 1, 12:37*pm, Cecil Moore wrote: On Jun 30, 11:29*am, Keith Dysart wrote: Check the a0 coefficient in the Fourier transform. This represents the DC component of the signal. And the result is zero EM waves, either forward or reflected, and your argument falls apart. Without this, how would you deal with a signal such as * V(t) = 10 + 2 cos(3t) If the cosine term is zero, there are zero EM waves, either forward or reflected, and your argument falls apart. Incidentally, V(t) = 10, is a perfect way to prove that energy and the time derivitive of energy are not the same thing and your argument falls apart. Alternatively, one can use the standard trick for dealing with non-repetitive waveforms: choose an arbitrary period. 24 hours would probably be suitable for these examples and transform from there. Still, you will have zero frequency component to deal with, but there will be some at higher frequencies (if you choose your function to make it so). Windowing doesn't generate EM waves where none exist in reality and your argument falls apart. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com a better argument is that a constant voltage produces a constant electric field everywhere, since the field is not varying in time or space there is no time or space derivative to create a magnetic field so there can be no propagating em wave. *you could do the same with zero or constant current producing a constant magnetic field. The same question for you... With an infinitely long transmission line excited by a step function, is there an EM wave propagating down the line? If not, what is it that is propagating down the line? Especially at the leading edge? essentially the dc case IS unique in that you must wait forever for it to reach sinusoidal steady state since the lowest frequency component is 0hz You have used similar phrases before. Are you suggesting that an open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes infinitely long to read steady state? ...Keith 'it depends'... in the special case you have concocted where the 'Concocted has such perjorative ring to it. Much better would be 'appropriately selected to illustrate a point'! signal source has no reflections it only takes one round trip. * Excellent. Some agreement. this case is very misleading if you try to extend it to cover other cases. in general it takes infinitely long and you must account for the infinite series of reflections. * Of course. But this illustrates one of the benefits of "appropriately selecting" examples. One can choose examples that do not take forever to settle and therefore can be analyzed in finite time. that is why the approximations To which approximations do you refer? used to come up with the sinusoidal steady state solution is so useful, and exactly why it can not be applied to steps and square waves and other non sinusoidal constant sources. Are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to use the reflection coefficient computed at an impedance discontinuity to predict the behaviour of a transmission line excited with a 'step, square wave or other non sinusoidal constant sources"? and in your infinite line example it never reaches steady state so the step wave propagates forever So is this 'step wave' an EM wave, according to your definition of an EM wave? If not, what would you call it? ...Keith correct, the 'step wave' is not AN EM wave, it is an infinite summation of EM waves. |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 6, 12:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:33*am, Cecil Moore wrote: On Jul 4, 8:08*pm, Keith Dysart wrote: The system I have in mind has ports through which energy can flow in or out of the system and components inside the system which can store energy. For such a system, the energy flowing in to ports of the system minus the energy flowing out of ports *must equal the increase in energy being stored in the system. This must be true at all times, or energy is being created or destroyed; a bit of a no-no. But you are not tracking energy - you are tracking power. As Roy has said, there is no requirement that instantaneous power must balance. Where are the stored energy terms in any of your instantaneous power equations? How do you handle the difference in dimensions between energy and power? The only condition for which NET power must balance is during a time interval in which there is zero NET stored power, e.g. during one cycle. I have rev'ed my zero interference article to include the following statement: "Over a time period of many cycles, e.g. one second at MHz frequencies, the net average energy and the net average power are related by joules/second. Thus, if certain conditions are met, net average power can be used to track the net average energy flow based on the conservation of energy principle. However, at time intervals of less than one cycle, as exists for instantaneous power, power cannot be used to track energy because energy is often stored in a reactance, is not moving at that instant, and is therefore technically not power. In fact, unlike energy, power often appears and disappears. There are special cases where average power in joules/second can be used to track average energy in joules but instantaneous power is not one of those special cases." -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Well, you are digging your hole deeper and deeper. You really should take a pause and try to understand the significance of "Continuity equations". Do seriously consider Kerchoff's current law as an example. ...Keith do you not think that it is telling that there is a current law and a voltage law, but not a basic power law included in basic circuit theory? maybe there is a reason for that. |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 6, 5:23*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:57*pm, Cecil Moore wrote: On Jul 5, 7:44*pm, Keith Dysart wrote: When, exactly, does the EM wave cease to exist? I don't know exactly but it will be when DC steady-state has been achieved, i.e. when electrons are no longer being accelerated or decelerated. More evasion. So are now saying there may indeed be an EM wave present with DC? Even with DC, the electrons are not moving with constant velocity but hop from atom to atom. Seems like acceleration and deceleration to me. ...Keith DC does not an EM wave make... nor does one year make DC, the summation is infinite, you must wait FOREVER for DC to be achieved and by then you just won't care any more. |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 6, 6:01*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:17*am, Keith Dysart wrote: On Jul 5, 6:19*am, K1TTT wrote: On Jul 5, 1:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote: On Jul 1, 8:53*am, K1TTT wrote: On Jul 1, 12:37*pm, Cecil Moore wrote: On Jun 30, 11:29*am, Keith Dysart wrote: Check the a0 coefficient in the Fourier transform. This represents the DC component of the signal. And the result is zero EM waves, either forward or reflected, and your argument falls apart. Without this, how would you deal with a signal such as * V(t) = 10 + 2 cos(3t) If the cosine term is zero, there are zero EM waves, either forward or reflected, and your argument falls apart. Incidentally, V(t) = 10, is a perfect way to prove that energy and the time derivitive of energy are not the same thing and your argument falls apart. Alternatively, one can use the standard trick for dealing with non-repetitive waveforms: choose an arbitrary period. 24 hours would probably be suitable for these examples and transform from there. Still, you will have zero frequency component to deal with, but there will be some at higher frequencies (if you choose your function to make it so). Windowing doesn't generate EM waves where none exist in reality and your argument falls apart. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com a better argument is that a constant voltage produces a constant electric field everywhere, since the field is not varying in time or space there is no time or space derivative to create a magnetic field so there can be no propagating em wave. *you could do the same with zero or constant current producing a constant magnetic field. The same question for you... With an infinitely long transmission line excited by a step function, is there an EM wave propagating down the line? If not, what is it that is propagating down the line? Especially at the leading edge? essentially the dc case IS unique in that you must wait forever for it to reach sinusoidal steady state since the lowest frequency component is 0hz You have used similar phrases before. Are you suggesting that an open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes infinitely long to read steady state? ...Keith 'it depends'... in the special case you have concocted where the 'Concocted has such perjorative ring to it. Much better would be 'appropriately selected to illustrate a point'! signal source has no reflections it only takes one round trip. * Excellent. Some agreement. this case is very misleading if you try to extend it to cover other cases. in general it takes infinitely long and you must account for the infinite series of reflections. * Of course. But this illustrates one of the benefits of "appropriately selecting" examples. One can choose examples that do not take forever to settle and therefore can be analyzed in finite time. that is why the approximations To which approximations do you refer? used to come up with the sinusoidal steady state solution is so useful, and exactly why it can not be applied to steps and square waves and other non sinusoidal constant sources. Are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to use the reflection coefficient computed at an impedance discontinuity to predict the behaviour of a transmission line excited with a 'step, square wave or other non sinusoidal constant sources"? and in your infinite line example it never reaches steady state so the step wave propagates forever So is this 'step wave' an EM wave, according to your definition of an EM wave? If not, what would you call it? ...Keith correct, the 'step wave' is not AN EM wave, it is an infinite summation of EM waves Well at least there is no attempt at diversion here. What is the shape of these EM waves of which there is an infinite number which sum to a step? ....Keith |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 6, 6:02*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote: On Jul 5, 8:33*am, Cecil Moore wrote: On Jul 4, 8:08*pm, Keith Dysart wrote: The system I have in mind has ports through which energy can flow in or out of the system and components inside the system which can store energy. For such a system, the energy flowing in to ports of the system minus the energy flowing out of ports *must equal the increase in energy being stored in the system. This must be true at all times, or energy is being created or destroyed; a bit of a no-no. But you are not tracking energy - you are tracking power. As Roy has said, there is no requirement that instantaneous power must balance. Where are the stored energy terms in any of your instantaneous power equations? How do you handle the difference in dimensions between energy and power? The only condition for which NET power must balance is during a time interval in which there is zero NET stored power, e.g. during one cycle. I have rev'ed my zero interference article to include the following statement: "Over a time period of many cycles, e.g. one second at MHz frequencies, the net average energy and the net average power are related by joules/second. Thus, if certain conditions are met, net average power can be used to track the net average energy flow based on the conservation of energy principle. However, at time intervals of less than one cycle, as exists for instantaneous power, power cannot be used to track energy because energy is often stored in a reactance, is not moving at that instant, and is therefore technically not power.. In fact, unlike energy, power often appears and disappears. There are special cases where average power in joules/second can be used to track average energy in joules but instantaneous power is not one of those special cases." -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Well, you are digging your hole deeper and deeper. You really should take a pause and try to understand the significance of "Continuity equations". Do seriously consider Kerchoff's current law as an example. ...Keith do you not think that it is telling that there is a current law and a voltage law, but not a basic power law included in basic circuit theory? *maybe there is a reason for that Perhaps. What is your explanation? ....Keith |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 6, 6:07*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:23*am, Keith Dysart wrote: On Jul 5, 9:57*pm, Cecil Moore wrote: On Jul 5, 7:44*pm, Keith Dysart wrote: When, exactly, does the EM wave cease to exist? I don't know exactly but it will be when DC steady-state has been achieved, i.e. when electrons are no longer being accelerated or decelerated. More evasion. So are now saying there may indeed be an EM wave present with DC? Even with DC, the electrons are not moving with constant velocity but hop from atom to atom. Seems like acceleration and deceleration to me. ...Keith DC does not an EM wave make... nor does one year make DC, the summation is infinite, you must wait FOREVER for DC to be achieved and by then you just won't care any more But previously you said the line would settle after one round trip if the source was matched. How is this consistent with having to wait forever? ....Keith |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 6 jul, 19:07, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:23*am, Keith Dysart wrote: On Jul 5, 9:57*pm, Cecil Moore wrote: On Jul 5, 7:44*pm, Keith Dysart wrote: When, exactly, does the EM wave cease to exist? I don't know exactly but it will be when DC steady-state has been achieved, i.e. when electrons are no longer being accelerated or decelerated. More evasion. So are now saying there may indeed be an EM wave present with DC? Even with DC, the electrons are not moving with constant velocity but hop from atom to atom. Seems like acceleration and deceleration to me. ...Keith DC does not an EM wave make... nor does one year make DC, the summation is infinite, you must wait FOREVER for DC to be achieved and by then you just won't care any more.- Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita - Hello friends: A few years ago I posted in this newsgroup a doubt from a friend of me about DC current (such a batery connected to a lamp) radiating EM waves... It was in topic "Antenna gain question" (2005-10-31). My answer wold be that classic physics postulate EM radiation from accelerated charges in closed circuit because charges are under centripetal acceleration (I though of ciclotron radiation analogy, of course). My friend Richard Clarke disagreed with my hypothesis and I archived the issue for a couple of years, (he give me some analogies with moving cars, I remember...) Time later I was casually reading some pages from Kraus and I found the answer! :D: Kraus says: "a charge moving at uniform velocity along a curved or bent wire it is accelerated and radiates". The clue was in words "straight wire" , he says: "Electric charge moving with uniform velocity along a straight wire does not radiate". then, a DC also must be rectlinear (perhaps it must move on a geodesic, but I do not know general relativity enough to say it) (*) (*) "Antennas" John D. Krauss - Second Edition -1997 Page 50. 73 - Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"lu6etj" wrote ... D: Kraus says: "a charge moving at uniform velocity along a curved or bent wire it is accelerated and radiates". The clue was in words "straight wire" , he says: "Electric charge moving with uniform velocity along a straight wire does not radiate". This principle is used today to produce the light in the free electron laser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEL_principle.png S* |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 7 jul, 16:55, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"lu6etj" ... D: Kraus says: "a charge moving at uniform velocity along a curved or bent wire it is accelerated and radiates". The clue was in words "straight wire" , he says: "Electric charge moving with uniform velocity along a straight wire does not radiate". This principle is used today to produce the light in the free electron laser:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEL_principle.png S* Yes, very interesting example (and device), Cecil it is right respect a photon/noise power ratio, even one photon of 80 m per second it is very below of noise at 1 K, 80 m-quantum/ Noise dB ratio @1 Hz BW = -38 dB. Respect to DC current EM radiation, In that time Richard bring an interesting example of 20 kV electron rectilinear beam rendering a frequency of 34.6 EHz, the calculus it was quite right, but that frequency it is not EM waves radiated by electrons but a "matter wave' frequency... (idem with car analogy = not charged and acelerated cars :) do not radiates EM waves, but may have a matter wave asociated to them). For these reasons IMHO I think -as Cecil do-: basic (undergraduated?) physics books are very useful to helping us to better understand and enjoy our ham topics. 73 - Miguel |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"lu6etj" wrote ... On 7 jul, 16:55, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: This principle is used today to produce the light in the free electron laser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEL_principle.png Yes, very interesting example (and device), Respect to DC current EM radiation, In that time Richard bring an interesting example of 20 kV electron rectilinear beam rendering a frequency of 34.6 EHz, the calculus it was quite right, but that frequency it is not EM waves radiated by electrons but a "matter wave' frequency... (idem with car analogy = not charged and acelerated cars :) do not radiates EM waves, but may have a matter wave asociated to them). Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. So in the wire the sound waves travel with the low speed (medium are ions), and the electric waves (medium are the free electrons) with the extremally high speed. For these reasons IMHO I think -as Cecil do-: basic (undergraduated?) physics books are very useful to helping us to better understand and enjoy our ham topics. For graduated is the field math only. S* 73 - Miguel |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 8 jul, 04:44, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"lu6etj" ... On 7 jul, 16:55, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: This principle is used today to produce the light in the free electron laser:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEL_principle.png Yes, very interesting example (and device), Respect to DC current EM radiation, In that time Richard bring an interesting example of 20 kV electron rectilinear beam rendering a frequency of 34.6 EHz, the calculus it was quite right, but that frequency it is not EM waves radiated by electrons but a "matter wave' frequency... (idem with car analogy = not charged and acelerated cars :) do not radiates EM waves, but may have a matter wave asociated to them). Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 7/8/2010 2:44 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
wrote ... On 7 jul, 16:55, "Szczepan wrote: This principle is used today to produce the light in the free electron laser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEL_principle.png Yes, very interesting example (and device), Respect to DC current EM radiation, In that time Richard bring an interesting example of 20 kV electron rectilinear beam rendering a frequency of 34.6 EHz, the calculus it was quite right, but that frequency it is not EM waves radiated by electrons but a "matter wave' frequency... (idem with car analogy = not charged and acelerated cars :) do not radiates EM waves, but may have a matter wave asociated to them). Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. So in the wire the sound waves travel with the low speed (medium are ions), and the electric waves (medium are the free electrons) with the extremally high speed. For these reasons IMHO I think -as Cecil do-: basic (undergraduated?) physics books are very useful to helping us to better understand and enjoy our ham topics. For graduated is the field math only. S* 73 - Miguel You guys are better than Monty Python. tom K0TAR |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"lu6etj" wrote ... On 8 jul, 04:44, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. So in the wire the sound waves travel with the low speed (medium are ions), and the electric waves (medium are the free electrons) with the extremally high speed. For these reasons IMHO I think -as Cecil do-: basic (undergraduated?) physics books are very useful to helping us to better understand and enjoy our ham topics. For graduated is the field math only. Hello Szczepan, good day: I do not know if I undestood quit right your sentences (we are both out of our native lenaguage) correct me if I am wrong. Such as we have more troubles with writting than with understanding. Today we do not conceive unverse as a material thing, then if you want to say with "each waves are material waves" that all is mater you are talking with century XIX words/concepts. Some things were discovered before XIX century. Many more after. However matter waves are not neither mater nor energy waves, they are "probabilty waves", probability it is not a "thing", it is a mathematical concept, surely you know that. The new concepts are create every day. All must be verified by experiments. All concepts on "inmaterial waves" was created by scientists who did not know that in the space is matter. Ludwig Lorenz know that because he had known what the sublimation is. "surely you know that" also. If you accept the matter in the space when you do not need the EM waves and "probabilty waves". S* .. |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 9, 6:16*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"lu6etj" ... On 8 jul, 04:44, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. So in the wire the sound waves travel with the low speed (medium are ions), and the electric waves (medium are the free electrons) with the extremally high speed. For these reasons IMHO I think -as Cecil do-: basic (undergraduated?) physics books are very useful to helping us to better understand and enjoy our ham topics. For graduated is the field math only. Hello Szczepan, good day: I do not know if I undestood quit right your sentences (we are both out of our native lenaguage) correct me if I am wrong. Such as we have more troubles with writting than with understanding. Today we do not conceive unverse as a material thing, then if you want to say with "each waves are material waves" that all is mater you are talking with century XIX words/concepts. Some things were discovered before XIX century. Many more after. However matter waves are not neither mater nor energy waves, they are "probabilty waves", probability it is not a "thing", it is a mathematical concept, surely you know that. The new concepts are create every day. All must be verified by experiments. All concepts on "inmaterial waves" was created by scientists who did not know that in the space is matter. Ludwig Lorenz know that because he had known what the sublimation is. "surely you know that" also. If you accept the matter in the space when you do not need the EM waves and "probabilty waves". S* . don't worry about mr. b... he is stuck in the 19th century. some day he may discover that some of the fun things they thought about back then like magnetic vortices and aether were soundly debunked in the 20th century. |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 9 jul, 09:16, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:16*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: *"lu6etj" ... On 8 jul, 04:44, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. So in the wire the sound waves travel with the low speed (medium are ions), and the electric waves (medium are the free electrons) with the extremally high speed. For these reasons IMHO I think -as Cecil do-: basic (undergraduated?) physics books are very useful to helping us to better understand and enjoy our ham topics. For graduated is the field math only. Hello Szczepan, good day: I do not know if I undestood quit right your sentences (we are both out of our native lenaguage) correct me if I am wrong. Such as we have more troubles with writting than with understanding. Today we do not conceive unverse as a material thing, then if you want to say with "each waves are material waves" that all is mater you are talking with century XIX words/concepts. Some things were discovered before XIX century. Many more after. However matter waves are not neither mater nor energy waves, they are "probabilty waves", probability it is not a "thing", it is a mathematical concept, surely you know that. The new concepts are create every day. All must be verified by experiments. All concepts on "inmaterial waves" was created by scientists who did not know that in the space is matter. Ludwig Lorenz know that because he had known what the sublimation is. "surely you know that" also. If you accept the matter in the space when you do not need the EM waves and "probabilty waves". S* . don't worry about mr. b... he is stuck in the 19th century. *some day he may discover that some of the fun things they thought about back then like magnetic vortices and aether were soundly debunked in the 20th century.- Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita - |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 9 jul, 09:16, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:16*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: *"lu6etj" ... On 8 jul, 04:44, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. So in the wire the sound waves travel with the low speed (medium are ions), and the electric waves (medium are the free electrons) with the extremally high speed. For these reasons IMHO I think -as Cecil do-: basic (undergraduated?) physics books are very useful to helping us to better understand and enjoy our ham topics. For graduated is the field math only. Hello Szczepan, good day: I do not know if I undestood quit right your sentences (we are both out of our native lenaguage) correct me if I am wrong. Such as we have more troubles with writting than with understanding. Today we do not conceive unverse as a material thing, then if you want to say with "each waves are material waves" that all is mater you are talking with century XIX words/concepts. Some things were discovered before XIX century. Many more after. However matter waves are not neither mater nor energy waves, they are "probabilty waves", probability it is not a "thing", it is a mathematical concept, surely you know that. The new concepts are create every day. All must be verified by experiments. All concepts on "inmaterial waves" was created by scientists who did not know that in the space is matter. Ludwig Lorenz know that because he had known what the sublimation is. "surely you know that" also. If you accept the matter in the space when you do not need the EM waves and "probabilty waves". S* . don't worry about mr. b... he is stuck in the 19th century. *some day he may discover that some of the fun things they thought about back then like magnetic vortices and aether were soundly debunked in the 20th century.- Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita - Well, then I will have to dust my book about caloric and phlogyston... :) Miguel |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"K1TTT" wrote ... On Jul 9, 6:16 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. So in the wire the sound waves travel with the low speed (medium are ions), and the electric waves (medium are the free electrons) with the extremally high speed. The new concepts are create every day. All must be verified by experiments. All concepts on "inmaterial waves" was created by scientists who did not know that in the space is matter. Ludwig Lorenz know that because he had known what the sublimation is. "surely you know that" also. If you accept the matter in the space when you do not need the EM waves and "probabilty waves". don't worry about mr. b... he is stuck in the 19th century. I am in plasma physics. It is in XXI century. It is nothing wrong that I know that Ludwig Lorenz discovered space plasma in XIX century. some day he may discover that some of the fun things they thought about back then like magnetic vortices and aether were soundly debunked in the 20th century. They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" S* |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 9, 1:42*pm, lu6etj wrote:
On 9 jul, 09:16, K1TTT wrote: On Jul 9, 6:16*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: *"lu6etj" ... On 8 jul, 04:44, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. So in the wire the sound waves travel with the low speed (medium are ions), and the electric waves (medium are the free electrons) with the extremally high speed. For these reasons IMHO I think -as Cecil do-: basic (undergraduated?) physics books are very useful to helping us to better understand and enjoy our ham topics. For graduated is the field math only. Hello Szczepan, good day: I do not know if I undestood quit right your sentences (we are both out of our native lenaguage) correct me if I am wrong. Such as we have more troubles with writting than with understanding. Today we do not conceive unverse as a material thing, then if you want to say with "each waves are material waves" that all is mater you are talking with century XIX words/concepts. Some things were discovered before XIX century. Many more after. However matter waves are not neither mater nor energy waves, they are "probabilty waves", probability it is not a "thing", it is a mathematical concept, surely you know that. The new concepts are create every day. All must be verified by experiments. All concepts on "inmaterial waves" was created by scientists who did not know that in the space is matter. Ludwig Lorenz know that because he had known what the sublimation is. "surely you know that" also. If you accept the matter in the space when you do not need the EM waves and "probabilty waves". S* . don't worry about mr. b... he is stuck in the 19th century. *some day he may discover that some of the fun things they thought about back then like magnetic vortices and aether were soundly debunked in the 20th century.- Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita - Well, then I will have to dust my book about caloric and phlogyston... :) Miguel to talk with mr.b those may be useful! |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 9, 4:25*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ... On Jul 9, 6:16 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Each waves are the matter waves. The speed is the particles mass dependent. So in the wire the sound waves travel with the low speed (medium are ions), and the electric waves (medium are the free electrons) with the extremally high speed. The new concepts are create every day. All must be verified by experiments. All concepts on "inmaterial waves" was created by scientists who did not know that in the space is matter. Ludwig Lorenz know that because he had known what the sublimation is. "surely you know that" also. If you accept the matter in the space when you do not need the EM waves and "probabilty waves". don't worry about mr. b... he is stuck in the 19th century. I am in plasma physics. It is in XXI century. It is nothing wrong that I know that Ludwig Lorenz discovered space plasma in XIX century. some day he may discover that some of the fun things they thought about back then like magnetic vortices and aether were soundly debunked in the 20th century. They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" S* well, then the heaviside equations you are looking at are out of date and worthless... go study what is currently described as maxwell's equations instead. |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"K1TTT" wrote ... On Jul 9, 4:25 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" well, then the heaviside equations you are looking at are out of date and worthless... go study what is currently described as maxwell's equations instead. They were debunked by Royal Society. Some years after that Heaviside reworked them. Royal Society did not accept Heaviside. Now people write what they want. Why I should go "study what is currently described" about EM. I prefer real physics. S* |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 9, 5:16*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ... On Jul 9, 4:25 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" well, then the heaviside equations you are looking at are out of date and worthless... go study what is currently described as maxwell's equations instead. They were debunked by Royal Society. Some years after that Heaviside reworked them. Royal Society did not accept Heaviside. Now people write what they want. Why I should go "study what is currently described" about EM. I prefer real physics. S* assuming that is the physics of your own little reality that is just fine. |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 9, 5:16*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ... On Jul 9, 4:25 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" well, then the heaviside equations you are looking at are out of date and worthless... go study what is currently described as maxwell's equations instead. They were debunked by Royal Society. Some years after that Heaviside reworked them. Royal Society did not accept Heaviside. Now people write what they want. Why I should go "study what is currently described" about EM. I prefer real physics. S* assuming that is the physics of your own little reality that is just fine. |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 9, 5:16*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: *"K1TTT" ... On Jul 9, 4:25 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" well, then the heaviside equations you are looking at are out of date and worthless... go study what is currently described as maxwell's equations instead. They were debunked by Royal Society. Some years after that Heaviside reworked them. Royal Society did not accept Heaviside. Now people write what they want. Why I should go "study what is currently described" about EM. I prefer real physics. S* assuming that is the physics of your own little reality that is just fine. Please God, let this thread die! |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 9 jul, 22:13, Allodoxaphobia
wrote: On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT wrote: On Jul 9, 5:16*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: *"K1TTT" ... On Jul 9, 4:25 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" well, then the heaviside equations you are looking at are out of date and worthless... go study what is currently described as maxwell's equations instead. They were debunked by Royal Society. Some years after that Heaviside reworked them. Royal Society did not accept Heaviside. Now people write what they want. Why I should go "study what is currently described" about EM. I prefer real physics. S* assuming that is the physics of your own little reality that is just fine. Please God, let this thread die!- Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita - You have been forced to read it? Call the police ! (911) |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 7/9/2010 8:13 PM, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT wrote: On Jul 9, 5:16 pm, "Szczepan wrote: ... On Jul 9, 4:25 pm, "Szczepan wrote: They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" well, then the heaviside equations you are looking at are out of date and worthless... go study what is currently described as maxwell's equations instead. They were debunked by Royal Society. Some years after that Heaviside reworked them. Royal Society did not accept Heaviside. Now people write what they want. Why I should go "study what is currently described" about EM. I prefer real physics. S* assuming that is the physics of your own little reality that is just fine. Please God, let this thread die! If it causes you pain I'd suggest filtering this thread out. If you don't know how to do it I'm sure someone here would help you. They are incredibly helpful. When they agree on something. tom K0TAR |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 10, 1:13*am, Allodoxaphobia
wrote: On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT wrote: On Jul 9, 5:16*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: *"K1TTT" ... On Jul 9, 4:25 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" well, then the heaviside equations you are looking at are out of date and worthless... go study what is currently described as maxwell's equations instead. They were debunked by Royal Society. Some years after that Heaviside reworked them. Royal Society did not accept Heaviside. Now people write what they want. Why I should go "study what is currently described" about EM. I prefer real physics. S* assuming that is the physics of your own little reality that is just fine. Please God, let this thread die! NEVER! |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On Jul 10, 3:43*am, tom wrote:
On 7/9/2010 8:13 PM, Allodoxaphobia wrote: On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT wrote: On Jul 9, 5:16 pm, "Szczepan *wrote: * ... On Jul 9, 4:25 pm, "Szczepan *wrote: They were debunked in XIX century. I do not understand why you and some others use still "magnetic vortices and aether". Do not you know that the Heaviside equations describe them" well, then the heaviside equations you are looking at are out of date and worthless... go study what is currently described as maxwell's equations instead. They were debunked by Royal Society. Some years after that Heaviside reworked them. Royal Society did not accept Heaviside. Now people write what they want. Why I should go "study what is currently described" about EM. I prefer real physics. S* assuming that is the physics of your own little reality that is just fine. Please God, let this thread die! If it causes you pain I'd suggest filtering this thread out. If you don't know how to do it I'm sure someone here would help you. They are incredibly helpful. *When they agree on something. tom K0TAR but when has that ever happened? |
what happens to reflected energy ?
On 7/10/2010 5:28 AM, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:43 am, wrote: fine. Please God, let this thread die! If it causes you pain I'd suggest filtering this thread out. If you don't know how to do it I'm sure someone here would help you. They are incredibly helpful. When they agree on something. tom K0TAR but when has that ever happened? Exactly. :) tom K0TAR |
what happens to reflected energy ?
"K1TTT" wrote ... Please God, let this thread die! NEVER! I know. You appreciate my free lectures. Now is time for the solitons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton Real waves are not simetrical. They are the chain of solitons. Radio waves also. S* |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com