On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I said you, "mismatch" it is a magical word. TL reflected waves also
are explainabe with "mismatch" word. However mismatch it is a name for
a physical phenomena, what is that?

Water/Air
Most people would agree that both are physical.

When we talk about a traveling
wave

Hi Miguel,

Who is "we?" "Traveling Waves" have their own special meaning, and
that meaning is unnecessary for this discussion.

reaching the "mismatch" point we

We?

can try to explain WHY the
reflection occur.

If you choose, but the WHY is unnecessary too.

Skip the magic words, as you call them. Everything you discuss is
available, by parts, but together nothing changes anything.

A transmission line is an artificial medium. It is artificial in the
sense of being man-made. Being artificial, it attempts to be similar
to nature's available media. The electronics is same for all.
Discontinuities, interfaces, abound in both artificial realms and
natural realms. Their behavior is governed by the same physics - only
the parameters are different (which is the nature of reality).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 14 sep, 19:59, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I said you, "mismatch" it is a magical word. TL reflected waves also
are explainabe with "mismatch" word. However mismatch it is a name for
a physical phenomena, what is that?

Water/Air
Most people would agree that both are physical.

When we talk about a traveling
wave

Hi Miguel,

Who is "we?" *"Traveling Waves" have their own special meaning, and
that meaning is unnecessary for this discussion.

reaching the "mismatch" point we

We?

can try to explain WHY the
reflection occur.

If you choose, but the WHY is unnecessary too.

Skip the magic words, as you call them. *Everything you discuss is
available, by parts, but together nothing changes anything.

A transmission line is an artificial medium. *It is artificial in the
sense of being man-made. *Being artificial, it attempts to be similar
to nature's available media. *The electronics is same for all.
Discontinuities, interfaces, abound in both artificial realms and
natural realms. *Their behavior is governed by the same physics - only
the parameters are different (which is the nature of reality).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Good mornig Richard

You are right my friend, there are not conduction currents, there not
displacement currents, there are not electrical and magnetic fields,
there are not electric charges neither electrical dipoles in soil and
water, just "mismatch" and "discontinuities" (do explain antenna
radiation with "mismatch") I wonder why those evil teachers make me
spend my time studying those things. Well... now I will return to my
science fiction physics books

73 Miguel

SRI,

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:11:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

there are not conduction currents, there not
displacement currents, there are not electrical and magnetic fields,
there are not electric charges neither electrical dipoles in soil and
water,

Hi Miguel,

There aren't? You have problems.

just "mismatch" and "discontinuities"

and more problems.

(do explain antenna
radiation with "mismatch")

******** Part One of Explanation ********

What about a conductive antenna is matched to an (relatively)
unconductive air (or free space for that matter)?

When your RF, conducting down the transmission line, sees the antenna,
it finds either a match and continues into the antenna, or finds a
mismatch and is reflected (yeah, some cannot accept the concept of
reflected power - so let's say that the energy does not cross the
interface except by some proportion in degree to the mismatch).

For what RF power/energy that does get into the radiating element, it
conducts down to the end of the element - and guess what? - it stops
conducting further in that direction.

Strange that this has to be said, being obvious in the first degree.

So, we have the antenna with some characteristic Z - can you put a
number to it? We have the surrounding medium with some characteristic
Z. They have some integral (meaning a number, integer) relationship.
Dare I call it mismatch?

When you look at the current distribution along a half wave dipole,
does it not exhibit a standing wave? If there were not a mismatch,
where did that come from?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:11:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

there are not conduction currents, there not
displacement currents, there are not electrical and magnetic fields,
there are not electric charges neither electrical dipoles in soil and
water,

(do explain antenna
radiation with "mismatch")

For what RF power/energy that does get into the radiating element, it
conducts down to the end of the element - and guess what? - it stops
conducting further in that direction.

Are you sure that there no thy field emission?

Strange that this has to be said, being obvious in the first degree.

The field emission is also in the first degree.

When you look at the current distribution along a half wave dipole,
does it not exhibit a standing wave? If there were not a mismatch,
where did that come from?

It the field emision is strong the VSWR is 1 and no standing wave.

Am I right?
S*

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:19:49 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

Am I right?

Your trolley jumped the rails entirely. Mismatch may well serve as a
reason for this too. Consider:
A train traveling 89mph left Cincinnati at 12PM. An airplane flew out
of Denver at 12:10PM going in the same direction. When will they dock
at the same time in Seattle if they are in transit and Daylight
Savings makes its changeover next month?

For complete credit:
What day did the train leave?
What day did the airplane arrive?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 15 sep, 14:01, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:11:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

there are not conduction currents, there not
displacement currents, there are not electrical and magnetic fields,
there are not electric charges neither electrical dipoles in soil and
water,

Hi Miguel,

There aren't? *You have problems.

just "mismatch" and "discontinuities"

*and more problems.

(do explain antenna
radiation with "mismatch")

******** Part One of Explanation ********

What about a conductive antenna is matched to an (relatively)
unconductive air (or free space for that matter)?

When your RF, conducting down the transmission line, sees the antenna,
it finds either a match and continues into the antenna, or finds a
mismatch and is reflected (yeah, some cannot accept the concept of
reflected power - so let's say that the energy does not cross the
interface except by some proportion in degree to the mismatch).

For what RF power/energy that does get into the radiating element, it
conducts down to the end of the element - and guess what? - it stops
conducting further in that direction.

Strange that this has to be said, being obvious in the first degree.

So, we have the antenna with some characteristic Z - can you put a
number to it? *We have the surrounding medium with some characteristic
Z. *They have some integral (meaning a number, integer) relationship.
Dare I call it mismatch?

When you look at the current distribution along a half wave dipole,
does it not exhibit a standing wave? *If there were not a mismatch,
where did that come from?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Oh, yes, I quite understand, balls bounce against walls "because walls
are discontinuities" there is a "mismatch in the media" c'est finite,
that's all folks! good "explanation", why to ask more?, why to ask
"why"? (one step back, the explanation was "God").

Good night Richard (it is time for my catechism)
It is my karma... I know... my second name is Ricardo

Miguel

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:43:51 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

why to ask more?

Because everthing else was "magic" to you. Strange sort of
limitation, but there you are with a less than satisfactory answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 16 sep, 00:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:43:51 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

why to ask more?

Because everthing else was "magic" to you. *Strange sort of
limitation, but there you are with a less than satisfactory answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


No, this form of question "why to ask more?" it is ironic, in spanish
means that "you", not me, do not want to ask more. You stop the
questioning in a high level (as in software "high level" meaning)
useful descriptive model of the world and refuse to look for the
underlying process responsible of that. "Magic" for me it is = PRINT
"hello world", because beneath it is asm code for PRINT instruction,
more deep it is movement of bits inside the processor, more lower yet
it is the electricity. To explain all program operations perhaps we do
not need go beyond PRINT statement knowledge, but BASIC it is not the
end of the story...

Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...? it is the more
conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech
to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation? Do better shows
to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to
radiate EM energy. Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the
paper's experiment and has got nil results. Until today we have only
scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work".
You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is
no good for me", that is not science! that is only your tastes :P You
do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham
fellows, you like quarreling!, hi hi, Be a good boy, dust off your
undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings, interesting things
happen at the bottom :)

73 - Miguel

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...?

I have to think about that question for a while. At the risk of
translation problems,
1. I don't think only boundary conditions;
2. I don't think I am the only one who studies boundary conditions;
3. Boundary conditions are not incorrect solutions.

it is the more
conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech
to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation?

Were you looking for an answer that refutes electrolite charges
radiation? Are YOU refuting electrolite charges radiation? Are
electrolite charges radiation the only solution? Is there radiation
if there are no electrolite charges? [You have already skipped past
dielectric lensing which refracts radiation too.]

Do better shows
to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to
radiate EM energy.

Why?

Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the
paper's experiment and has got nil results.

Why does it have to be nil?

Until today we have only
scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work".
You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is
no good for me",

I really said that? Looks like a bad translation with extra editing.
Maybe if you use my original post with cut-and-paste.

that is not science! that is only your tastes :P

"Mismatch" it is another magic word
Is this scientific?

You
do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham
fellows, you like quarreling!,

Hmmm, your argument sounds like conservative pleas. Look at second
quote above: "more conventional." I introduce another analytical
perspective and you appeal to old books reciting stale material:

hi hi, Be a good boy, dust off your
undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings

Moldy too.

Your question that I long ago responded to was:
what other classical process could explain the EM earth reflection?
and you are very disappointed that I did not boringly repeat the SAME
dusty classical process!

Why did you ask?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC