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

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:51:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:


snip

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.

Babbling gibberish.

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.

It is the modern definition, you babbling idiot.

There are
electron beams, and radio waves, with very little overlap.

Like wind and sound.

No, not at all.

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.

But they have nothing to do with radio or anything else you have been
babbling about.

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".

No, we do not as nothing of the sort happens.

You are an idiot.

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.

Yet more babbling nonsense with no basis in reality.

snip

It could not be wrong because such Giants as Ampere, Faraday, Stokes,
Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac were "using real world examples and numerical
calculations."

And still they mangaged to get some of the things they wrote wrong due
to lack of information not available until well into the 20th Century.

snip

Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac analyzed and explained
everythig.

No, they did not as they didn't have information that became available in
the 20th Century.

"Maybe this will help":

snip 187 year old quote

Teaching and science are the two different things. In teaching is the
hydraulic analogy in science are electrons.

Gibberish.

"It is unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of
Biot and Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere".

Babble.

You are an idiot.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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.

Wrong.

" 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

I see you didn't bother to include the part about it being dependant on
the work function, which means there is a minimum energy required.

Or more likely you just don't understand this anymore than you understand
anything else.

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

Wrong.

Best Regards,

You are an ignorant, babbling, idiot.

"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 21/04/2012 08:24, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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.

When that happens at zero or low voltages the electrons are call Beta
radiation!!

Yes.
When they escape at low voltages we call it "discharging".
Charge your antenna and measure the dicharging time.

" 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*

Nothing in what you quoted says that electrons are produced at "all
voltages". A straight line does not infer that the line stars from zero!!
There is a threshold voltage below which no emissions take place,

Your fancy is great. Congratulation.

this voltage is the intercept on the voltage axis for the straight line
thaled about.

So the "dicharging" do not exsists?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


When that happens at zero or low voltages the electrons are call Beta
radiation!!

Yes.

Which is radioactive decay and has nothing to do with ANYTHING you have
been babbling about.

When they escape at low voltages we call it "discharging".
Charge your antenna and measure the dicharging time.

That would be quite impossible.

snip babble

Nothing in what you quoted says that electrons are produced at "all
voltages". A straight line does not infer that the line stars from zero!!
There is a threshold voltage below which no emissions take place,

Your fancy is great. Congratulation.

He is correct and the minimum energy is determined by the work function,
yet another concept that totally escapes your understanding.

this voltage is the intercept on the voltage axis for the straight line
thaled about.

So the "dicharging" do not exsists?

Not in any way that you think happens because you are an ignorant idiot.