Most of you wrote that your antennas work below the voltage necessary to
start the electron emission.

But in reality the emission take place at all voltages.

" Attempts to understand autoelectronic emission included plotting
experimental current-voltage (i - V) data in different ways, to look for a
straight-line relationship. Current increased with voltage more rapidly than
linearly, but plots of type (log(i) vs. V) were not straight"

"A breakthrough came when Lauritsen[13] (and Oppenheimer independently[14])
found that plots of type (log(i) vs. 1/V) yielded good straight lines. This
result, published by Millikan and Lauritsen[13] in early 1928, was known to
Fowler and Nordheim.
Oppenheimer had predicted[14] that the field-induced tunneling of electrons
from atoms (the effect now called field ionization) would have this i(V)
dependence, had found this dependence in the published experimental field
emission results of Millikan and Eyring,[10] and proposed that CFE was due
to field-induced tunneling of electrons from atomic-like orbitals in surface
metal atoms. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_electron_emission

Electrons escape from each charged body. Your antennas emit electrons and
for this reason they need the sink of electrons (the earth/chassis/
counterpoise).

Best Regards,

S*

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).

Of course not.
Not only is this effect too small to be measured at voltages common
on a transmitter antenna, the voltage is also AC so these effects will
cancel out along the cycle of the AC wave. The net result will be zero.
There can only be a net current when there is a (large) DC voltage on
the charged body, which is not the case on a transmitter antenna.

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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).

Of course not.
Not only is this effect too small to be measured at voltages common
on a transmitter antenna, the voltage is also AC so these effects will
cancel out along the cycle of the AC wave. The net result will be zero.

No. "Once liberated, electrons are strongly repelled by the high electric
field near the electrode during negative voltage peaks from the oscillating
HV output "

There can only be a net current when there is a (large) DC voltage on
the charged body, which is not the case on a transmitter antenna.

In a transmitter antenna is the "oscillatory flow of electrons" with the net
current from the earth into air.
S*

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

"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*

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.

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

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.

"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*

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.