Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:24:03 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Great theory. If antennas emitted electrons, and electrons have mass, we could then build a rotating antenna powered by the electron belching reaction mass. Put the antenna on a hub, and watch the electron emissions turn the antenna as they fly off the antenna at ummm... the speed of light. A few hundred watts of power should be more than enough to move the antenna around. Yeah, great physics you have there. Hint: How fast do electrons travel in a wire? No, it's not the speed of light. It's called electron drift velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity http://www.jensign.com/JavaScience/www/cuwire/cuwire.html For the above example, it takes about 12 hours for an electron to travel 1 meter in a copper wire. Not exactly at RF speeds. Keep trying. Eventually, you'll get something correct. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci ... On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:24:03 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Great theory. If antennas emitted electrons, and electrons have mass, we could then build a rotating antenna powered by the electron belching reaction mass. Put the antenna on a hub, and watch the electron emissions turn the antenna as they fly off the antenna at ummm... the speed of light. A few hundred watts of power should be more than enough to move the antenna around. Yeah, great physics you have there. Hint: How fast do electrons travel in a wire? No, it's not the speed of light. It's called electron drift velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity http://www.jensign.com/JavaScience/www/cuwire/cuwire.html For the above example, it takes about 12 hours for an electron to travel 1 meter in a copper wire. Not exactly at RF speeds. The air molecules travel with the speed of the wind. But they oscillate if there is the sound source. The speed of sound and the speed the wind are the different things. The same is with the electron waves speed and the electron beam (drift) speed. Keep trying. Eventually, you'll get something correct. S* |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The air molecules travel with the speed of the wind. But they oscillate if there is the sound source. The speed of sound and the speed the wind are the different things. The same is with the electron waves speed and the electron beam (drift) speed. Nope, this is babbling nonsense and disproven long ago. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:51:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: "Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci .. . On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:24:03 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Great theory. If antennas emitted electrons, and electrons have mass, we could then build a rotating antenna powered by the electron belching reaction mass. Put the antenna on a hub, and watch the electron emissions turn the antenna as they fly off the antenna at ummm... the speed of light. A few hundred watts of power should be more than enough to move the antenna around. Yeah, great physics you have there. Hint: How fast do electrons travel in a wire? No, it's not the speed of light. It's called electron drift velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity http://www.jensign.com/JavaScience/www/cuwire/cuwire.html For the above example, it takes about 12 hours for an electron to travel 1 meter in a copper wire. Not exactly at RF speeds. The air molecules travel with the speed of the wind. But they oscillate if there is the sound source. The speed of sound and the speed the wind are the different things. Please let me know how far you can communicate using air molecules. There is a momentum transfer when moving air, but it dissipates rather quickly. Comparing electron dynamics with pneumatics just doesn't work.[1] The same is with the electron waves speed and the electron beam (drift) speed. Same as what? There is no such thing as an electron wave. There are electron beams, and radio waves, with very little overlap. If think that electrons fly off the ends of an antenna, there should be a way to directly detect those electrons. For example, a CRT has a phosphor screen that lights up when hit by electrons from the electron gun. If your mythical electrons are really there, you should also be able to place a phosphor screen near a transmitting antenna, and have it light up. Also, if your electrons are leaving the antenna, and flying off into the ether, there should be a rather large positive charge left on the antenna. If you then claim that the transmitter is replacing the electrons as fast as they are radiated, then the positive charge should reside in the transmitter. If you then claim that the local electric utility is supplying electrons to the transmitter, then the utility generating station must have a huge positive charge. Keep trying. Eventually, you'll get something correct. S* You're not trying hard enough. Open book, insert face, absorb everything, and verify what you've learned using real world examples and numerical calculations. If your theory of the moment can't be reduced to real (i.e. non-quantum) physics, with real calculations, and real experimental verification, it's probably wrong. [1] Maybe this will help. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough. Find a billiard table and line up about 10 balls in a line and as close together as possible. Use another ball to hit one end of the line, and time how long it takes between the first impact, and when the ball at the end starts to move. Now, cover the same distance with just the cue ball, and without the line of billiard balls. Note how it take MUCH longer for just the cue ball to travel the same distance. The line of billiard balls represents the atoms in a conductor. You'll get electron transport at almost the speed of light in such a situation. The cue ball alone represents the electron drift in the same conductor. If the cue ball could be made to travel at the same speed as it did through the line of billard balls, the felt on the billiard table would probably show a deep burn mark. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Also, if your electrons are leaving the antenna, and flying off into the ether, there should be a rather large positive charge left on the antenna. If you then claim that the transmitter is replacing the electrons as fast as they are radiated, then the positive charge should reside in the transmitter. If you then claim that the local electric utility is supplying electrons to the transmitter, then the utility generating station must have a huge positive charge. Well, he thinks that this is what is happening and therefore he believes that any transmitter should always be grounded so that the earth can supply the missing electrons and prevent the transmitter from being charged more and more. However, we all know this doesn't happen. He himself has no way to verify it because he does not have a transmitter (or he is not bright enough to realize that maybe he has one in his pocket). So he keeps insisting that the transmitter must be grounded or problems would occur because of the electron emission. When everyone agrees that these problems do not occur, he does not realize that maybe the electron emission is not there at the voltages involved, and he was wrong after all. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci ... On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:51:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: "Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci . .. On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:24:03 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/ counterpoise). Great theory. If antennas emitted electrons, and electrons have mass, we could then build a rotating antenna powered by the electron belching reaction mass. Put the antenna on a hub, and watch the electron emissions turn the antenna as they fly off the antenna at ummm... the speed of light. A few hundred watts of power should be more than enough to move the antenna around. Yeah, great physics you have there. Hint: How fast do electrons travel in a wire? No, it's not the speed of light. It's called electron drift velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity http://www.jensign.com/JavaScience/www/cuwire/cuwire.html For the above example, it takes about 12 hours for an electron to travel 1 meter in a copper wire. Not exactly at RF speeds. The air molecules travel with the speed of the wind. But they oscillate if there is the sound source. The speed of sound and the speed the wind are the different things. Please let me know how far you can communicate using air molecules. There is a momentum transfer when moving air, but it dissipates rather quickly. Comparing electron dynamics with pneumatics just doesn't work.[1] All is O.K. Oscillating molecules produce the electron waves and in this way lost its energy rather quickly. But no smaller species than the electrons. Tunnig fork transfer its energy to air molecules, air molecules to electrons and no next step. The same is with the electron waves speed and the electron beam (drift) speed. Same as what? There is no such thing as an electron wave. There no such thing as the EM waves. There are electron beams, and radio waves, with very little overlap. Like wind and sound. If think that electrons fly off the ends of an antenna, there should be a way to directly detect those electrons. For example, a CRT has a phosphor screen that lights up when hit by electrons from the electron gun. If your mythical electrons are really there, you should also be able to place a phosphor screen near a transmitting antenna, and have it light up. Cathode rays were idenified in 1895. Also, if your electrons are leaving the antenna, and flying off into the ether, there should be a rather large positive charge left on the antenna. You call it "static". If you then claim that the transmitter is replacing the electrons as fast as they are radiated, then the positive charge should reside in the transmitter. If you then claim that the local electric utility is supplying electrons to the transmitter, then the utility generating station must have a huge positive charge. For this reason the all electronic equipment have the earth/chassis/counterpoise as e remedy. Keep trying. Eventually, you'll get something correct. S* You're not trying hard enough. Open book, insert face, absorb everything, and verify what you've learned using real world examples and numerical calculations. If your theory of the moment can't be reduced to real (i.e. non-quantum) physics, with real calculations, and real experimental verification, it's probably wrong. It could not be wrong because such Giants as Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac were "using real world examples and numerical calculations." [1] Maybe this will help. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough. Find a billiard table and line up about 10 balls in a line and as close together as possible. Use another ball to hit one end of the line, and time how long it takes between the first impact, and when the ball at the end starts to move. Now, cover the same distance with just the cue ball, and without the line of billiard balls. Note how it take MUCH longer for just the cue ball to travel the same distance. The line of billiard balls represents the atoms in a conductor. You'll get electron transport at almost the speed of light in such a situation. The cue ball alone represents the electron drift in the same conductor. If the cue ball could be made to travel at the same speed as it did through the line of billard balls, the felt on the billiard table would probably show a deep burn mark. Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac analyzed and explained everythig. "Maybe this will help": 1825 - Ampere publishes his collected results on magnetism. His expression for the magnetic field produced by a small segment of current is different from that which follows naturally from the Biot-Savart law by an additive term which integrates to zero around closed circuit. It is unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of Biot and Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere, whose memoir contains both mathematical analysis and experimentation, artfully blended together. In this memoir are given some special instances of the result we now call Stokes theorem or as we usually write it. Maxwell describes this work as ``one of the most brilliant achievements in science. The whole, theory and experiment, seems as if it had leaped, full-grown and full-armed, from the brain of the `Newton of electricity'. It is perfect in form and unassailable in accuracy; and it is summed up in a formula from which all the phenomena may be deduced, and which must always remain the cardinal formula of electrodynamics.'' From: http://www.electricityforum.com/a-ti...ectricity.html "a small segment of current" = electron. "the Biot-Savart law" = hydraulic analogy. Teaching and science are the two different things. In teaching is the hydraulic analogy in science are electrons. "It is unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of Biot and Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere". S* |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
If you then claim that the transmitter is replacing the electrons as fast as they are radiated, then the positive charge should reside in the transmitter. If you then claim that the local electric utility is supplying electrons to the transmitter, then the utility generating station must have a huge positive charge. For this reason the all electronic equipment have the earth/chassis/counterpoise as e remedy. Maybe in 1900, but not today. This is because it was found that an antenna does not emit electrons. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:24:05 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: All is O.K. Oscillating molecules produce the electron waves and in this way lost its energy rather quickly. Oscillating (vibrating) molecules is a measure of heat energy. With that explanation, it would be necessary for antennas to be hot in order to radiate. Try again please. But no smaller species than the electrons. Other than positive electrons, there is only one type of electron. Tunnig fork transfer its energy to air molecules, air molecules to electrons and no next step. As I previously mention, pneumatic analogies do not work well for describing RF radiation. The same is with the electron waves speed and the electron beam (drift) speed. Same as what? There is no such thing as an electron wave. There no such thing as the EM waves. Nice dodge. Answer my question... same as what? What is the same as your electron wave? There are electron beams, and radio waves, with very little overlap. Like wind and sound. Which is like an electron beam? Wind or sound? Which is like a radio wave? Wind or sound? How are they like each other? If think that electrons fly off the ends of an antenna, there should be a way to directly detect those electrons. For example, a CRT has a phosphor screen that lights up when hit by electrons from the electron gun. If your mythical electrons are really there, you should also be able to place a phosphor screen near a transmitting antenna, and have it light up. Cathode rays were idenified in 1895. My antennas do not emit cathode rays. If they did, my neighborhood would be bombarded with electrons, potentially destroying everything it its path. Please produce a reproducible test, that will demonstrate that charged electrons are being emitted by an antenna. Your Nobel prize awaits you. Also, if your electrons are leaving the antenna, and flying off into the ether, there should be a rather large positive charge left on the antenna. You call it "static". Static electricity? The word "static" means not moving. With static electricity, surplus electrons (or lack of electrons) are accumulated on an object, giving it a negative (or positive) charge. The point is that they are not moving, just sitting there. Ever try to stop an RF signal? You can't. You can slow it down through various materials, but you can't stop it. RF and static are not the same. Try again. If you then claim that the transmitter is replacing the electrons as fast as they are radiated, then the positive charge should reside in the transmitter. If you then claim that the local electric utility is supplying electrons to the transmitter, then the utility generating station must have a huge positive charge. For this reason the all electronic equipment have the earth/chassis/counterpoise as e remedy. In case you haven't noticed, power lines are a balance pair. For 3 phase, they are also balanced at 120 degrees apart. The ground connection is strictly for safety and is not required for proper operation. It's there for safety, in the event you decide to prove your theory by discharging the mythical positive accumulated charge to ground through your body. It could not be wrong because such Giants as Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac were "using real world examples and numerical calculations." Pick one sample calculation that demonstrates that electrons are being emitted by transmitting antennas. There are plenty of tests that will detect electrons. Pick one. Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac analyzed and explained everythig. True, but you haven't explained anything. http://www.electricityforum.com/a-ti...ectricity.html Thank you for the history refresher. Unfortunately, I didn't see anyone claiming that antennas emit electrons. Could you be a little more specific. "a small segment of current" = electron. Segment? So, if I take a conductor, and cut out a segment, I can walk away with several amps of current contained in that segment? Amazing. "the Biot-Savart law" = hydraulic analogy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot-Savart law I fail to see any mention of hydraulics in the above article. Also, your analogy was pneumatic, not hydraulic. Teaching and science are the two different things. In teaching is the hydraulic analogy in science are electrons. I'm sure the teachers in this group will be thrilled to know that what they're teaching is not science. "It is unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of Biot and Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere". If there's a conflict, simple explanations tend to prevail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Sophistication is for science fiction. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci news On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:24:05 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: All is O.K. Oscillating molecules produce the electron waves and in this way lost its energy rather quickly. Oscillating (vibrating) molecules is a measure of heat energy. It apply to the air molecules. With that explanation, it would be necessary for antennas to be hot in order to radiate. Try again please. But no smaller species than the electrons. Other than positive electrons, there is only one type of electron. Tunnig fork transfer its energy to air molecules, air molecules to electrons and no next step. As I previously mention, pneumatic analogies do not work well for describing RF radiation. The same is with the electron waves speed and the electron beam (drift) speed. Same as what? There is no such thing as an electron wave. There no such thing as the EM waves. Nice dodge. Answer my question... same as what? What is the same as your electron wave? There are electron beams, and radio waves, with very little overlap. Like wind and sound. Which is like an electron beam? Wind or sound? Which is like a radio wave? Wind or sound? How are they like each other? The wind of course. Sound is like the electron waves. If think that electrons fly off the ends of an antenna, there should be a way to directly detect those electrons. For example, a CRT has a phosphor screen that lights up when hit by electrons from the electron gun. If your mythical electrons are really there, you should also be able to place a phosphor screen near a transmitting antenna, and have it light up. Cathode rays were idenified in 1895. My antennas do not emit cathode rays. If they did, my neighborhood would be bombarded with electrons, potentially destroying everything it its path. The cathode rays travel to the anode. Please produce a reproducible test, that will demonstrate that charged electrons are being emitted by an antenna. Your Nobel prize awaits you. It was done before the first Nobel prize. Also, if your electrons are leaving the antenna, and flying off into the ether, there should be a rather large positive charge left on the antenna. You call it "static". Static electricity? The word "static" means not moving. With static electricity, surplus electrons (or lack of electrons) are accumulated on an object, giving it a negative (or positive) charge. The point is that they are not moving, just sitting there. They travel into the earth. Ever try to stop an RF signal? You can't. You can slow it down through various materials, but you can't stop it. RF and static are not the same. Try again. If you then claim that the transmitter is replacing the electrons as fast as they are radiated, then the positive charge should reside in the transmitter. If you then claim that the local electric utility is supplying electrons to the transmitter, then the utility generating station must have a huge positive charge. For this reason the all electronic equipment have the earth/chassis/counterpoise as e remedy. In case you haven't noticed, power lines are a balance pair. For 3 phase, they are also balanced at 120 degrees apart. The ground connection is strictly for safety and is not required for proper operation. Totally wrong. The power lines and receiver antennas must have ground connection. "The wire antennas used with crystal receivers are monopole antennas which develop their output voltage with respect to ground. They require a return circuit connected to ground (earth) so that the current from the antenna, after passing through the receiver, can flow into the ground. The ground wire is attached to a radiator, a water pipe, or a metal stake driven into the ground.[4" It's there for safety, in the event you decide to prove your theory by discharging the mythical positive accumulated charge to ground through your body. It could not be wrong because such Giants as Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac were "using real world examples and numerical calculations." Pick one sample calculation that demonstrates that electrons are being emitted by transmitting antennas. There are plenty of tests that will detect electrons. Pick one. Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac analyzed and explained everythig. True, but you haven't explained anything. http://www.electricityforum.com/a-ti...ectricity.html Thank you for the history refresher. Unfortunately, I didn't see anyone claiming that antennas emit electrons. Could you be a little more specific. "a small segment of current" = electron. Segment? So, if I take a conductor, and cut out a segment, I can walk away with several amps of current contained in that segment? Amazing. "the Biot-Savart law" = hydraulic analogy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot-Savart law I fail to see any mention of hydraulics in the above article. Also, your analogy was pneumatic, not hydraulic. "The electronic-hydraulic analogy (derisively referred to as the drain-pipe theory by Oliver Heaviside) is the most widely used analogy for "electron fluid" in a metal conductor". In EM is "electron fluid". In science "electron gas". Teaching and science are the two different things. In teaching is the hydraulic analogy in science are electrons. I'm sure the teachers in this group will be thrilled to know that what they're teaching is not science. Jimp is a teacher. "It is unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of Biot and Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere". If there's a conflict, simple explanations tend to prevail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Sophistication is for science fiction. Here no conflict. The hydraulic analogy is enough for kids. S* |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Autoelectronic emission
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Totally wrong. The power lines and receiver antennas must have ground connection. "The wire antennas used with crystal receivers are monopole antennas which develop their output voltage with respect to ground. They require a return circuit connected to ground (earth) so that the current from the antenna, after passing through the receiver, can flow into the ground. The ground wire is attached to a radiator, a water pipe, or a metal stake driven into the ground.[4" Do you think that monopole antennas are the only existing antennas? It seems you do. However, that is not true. A dipole antenna does not need a ground connection as the output voltage is not with respect to ground, but between the two terminals. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Carbon Emission Regulations to be Used as Censorship Tool | Shortwave |