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

"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*

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.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:54:08 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:


"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.

It also applies to solids, liquids, vapors, smog, and partial vacuums.
If it's warm, it has molecules that vibrate. Now, how does mentioning
hot air prove the existence of electron waves?

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.

Really? If transmitting RF radiates electrons, what does your
belching hot air produce? Pneumatic particles? Where' the analogy?

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.

I have a cathode ray oscilloscope next to my radio. For some odd
reason, my radio fails to detect the cathode ray emissions. Perhaps
that's because an electron beam is not oscillatory and therefore does
not radiate in the RF regions?

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.

Well, if the Nobel Prize is insufficient, permit me to offer a
different prize, for which you seem qualified:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigasus_Award
Should you actually write a paper or produce an electron belching
transmitter, methinks this award would be more appropriate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize
http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html
You may need some help with the form and structure. I recommend the
Journal of Irreproducible Results as a suitable guideline.
http://www.jir.com
For example:
http://www.jir.com/turboencabulator.html
Be sure to include me in the credit for inspiring your research:

They travel into the earth.

Somehow, I've failed to notice electrons piling up on the ground.
Presumably, you're suggesting that they are falling from the sky due
to the effects of gravity. Well, that might explain my inability to
work DX with my ungrounded antenna, but does not explain how radio
functions in outer space, where there is no earth ground.

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.

Simply stating your conjecture, and quoting outdate and erroneous
conjecture does not make it correct. As I previously asked, can you
produce an experiment that would conclusively demonstrate that
electrons are being produced by RF transmissions, and that RF
propagation ceases when the antenna ground is removed? Please keep it
simple, like explaining how an ungrounded balanced dipole functions.

"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"

Congratulations. You've discovered the counterpoise. That's a good
idea (but not necessary) for a monopole, where the grounded
counterpoise forms the missing element of the dipole. However, that
doesn't demonstrate or prove anything about other antennas, most of
which have little use for an earth ground.

"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".

The only electron fluid that is currently valid is in plasma physics,
which has little to do with RF transmission. Could you kindly
enlighten me as to how one derives RF emissions and propagation from
plumbing? I couldn't find anything using Google.

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.

For a short time, I was a substitute teacher. I only taught one high
skool science class for 2 days. However, I taught science, not
technobabble.

Everyone lies, but that's ok, because nobody listens.

Here no conflict. The hydraulic analogy is enough for kids.

It's not enough for me. Please explain how plumbing can be used to
demonstrate RF transmission and propagation.

I can see that I'm making no progress at showing you the error of your
ways. Methinks it's a hopeless task. I have a computah and a radio
to repair on a fairly hot mountain top and will be too busy to debunk
your rubbish. Please carry on without me.

--
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 Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:54:08 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:


The cathode rays travel to the anode.

I have a cathode ray oscilloscope next to my radio. For some odd
reason, my radio fails to detect the cathode ray emissions. Perhaps
that's because an electron beam is not oscillatory and therefore does
not radiate in the RF regions?

Yes. The electron beam is a electron wind.

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.

Well, if the Nobel Prize is insufficient, permit me to offer a
different prize, for which you seem qualified:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigasus_Award
Should you actually write a paper or produce an electron belching
transmitter, methinks this award would be more appropriate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize
http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html
You may need some help with the form and structure. I recommend the
Journal of Irreproducible Results as a suitable guideline.
http://www.jir.com
For example:
http://www.jir.com/turboencabulator.html
Be sure to include me in the credit for inspiring your research:

I am not e writter or researcher. I only "copy and paste".

They travel into the earth.

Somehow, I've failed to notice electrons piling up on the ground.
Presumably, you're suggesting that they are falling from the sky due
to the effects of gravity. Well, that might explain my inability to
work DX with my ungrounded antenna, but does not explain how radio
functions in outer space, where there is no earth ground.

"The photoelectric effect will cause spacecraft exposed to sunlight to
develop a positive charge. This can be a major problem, as other parts of
the spacecraft in shadow develop a negative charge from nearby plasma, and
the imbalance can discharge through delicate electrical components. The
static charge created by the photoelectric effect is self-limiting, though,
because a more highly charged object gives up its electrons less
easily.[53]"


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.

Simply stating your conjecture, and quoting outdate and erroneous
conjecture does not make it correct. As I previously asked, can you
produce an experiment that would conclusively demonstrate that
electrons are being produced by RF transmissions, and that RF
propagation ceases when the antenna ground is removed? Please keep it
simple, like explaining how an ungrounded balanced dipole functions.

"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"

Congratulations. You've discovered the counterpoise. That's a good
idea (but not necessary) for a monopole, where the grounded
counterpoise forms the missing element of the dipole.

No. The counterpiose is the ground.

However, that
doesn't demonstrate or prove anything about other antennas, most of
which have little use for an earth ground.

"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".

The only electron fluid that is currently valid is in plasma physics,
which has little to do with RF transmission. Could you kindly
enlighten me as to how one derives RF emissions and propagation from
plumbing? I couldn't find anything using Google.

Heaviside derived RF emissions and propagation from the plumbing. RF are the
rotary oscillation.

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.

For a short time, I was a substitute teacher. I only taught one high
skool science class for 2 days. However, I taught science, not
technobabble.

Everyone lies, but that's ok, because nobody listens.

Here no conflict. The hydraulic analogy is enough for kids.

It's not enough for me. Please explain how plumbing can be used to
demonstrate RF transmission and propagation.

The oscillatory vibrations are demonstrated as the cylinder quickly rotated
to and fro in a water or solids.

I can see that I'm making no progress at showing you the error of your
ways. Methinks it's a hopeless task. I have a computah and a radio
to repair on a fairly hot mountain top and will be too busy to debunk
your rubbish. Please carry on without me.

Be the electronic not the plumber at your job.
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Congratulations. You've discovered the counterpoise. That's a good
idea (but not necessary) for a monopole, where the grounded
counterpoise forms the missing element of the dipole.

No. The counterpiose is the ground.

How can a counterpoise or chassis serve as an infinite source of
electrons? When your theory would be right, the counterpoise would
get charged just like the antenna. In reality this does not happen.

The counterpoise only serves as a place to dump AC current (the output
of the transmitter) during the cycle of radio frequency output. It is
not (and does not need to be) an infinite source of electrons because
elecrtrons are not emitted by the antenna.

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Congratulations. You've discovered the counterpoise. That's a good
idea (but not necessary) for a monopole, where the grounded
counterpoise forms the missing element of the dipole.

No. The counterpiose is the ground.

How can a counterpoise or chassis serve as an infinite source of
electrons?

They work like the receiving antenna of the cristal radio. Electrons from
the air go into metal.

Counterpoise is exactly like underground "ground". But if the soil is dry
sand or the rock there no free electrons. It is better to place the
conductors in the air.

When your theory would be right, the counterpoise would
get charged just like the antenna. In reality this does not happen.

It is not my theory. It is Marconi antenna and his theory.

The counterpoise only serves as a place to dump AC current (the output
of the transmitter) during the cycle of radio frequency output. It is
not (and does not need to be) an infinite source of electrons because
elecrtrons are not emitted by the antenna.

Where the voltage is there must be the electron emission.

Experiments with the photoelectric effect shown that no current below 10V.
But it apply to the flat cathode.
If the cathode is a wire the voltage is lower.

And what is with your antenna in sunny day?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Congratulations. You've discovered the counterpoise. That's a good
idea (but not necessary) for a monopole, where the grounded
counterpoise forms the missing element of the dipole.

No. The counterpiose is the ground.

How can a counterpoise or chassis serve as an infinite source of
electrons?

They work like the receiving antenna of the cristal radio. Electrons from
the air go into metal.

That is not what an antenne does.

Counterpoise is exactly like underground "ground". But if the soil is dry
sand or the rock there no free electrons. It is better to place the
conductors in the air.

But they are not connected to a source of free electrons, so if those
would be required they would be depleted pretty quickly.

When your theory would be right, the counterpoise would
get charged just like the antenna. In reality this does not happen.

It is not my theory. It is Marconi antenna and his theory.

But is is wrong, we know today.

The counterpoise only serves as a place to dump AC current (the output
of the transmitter) during the cycle of radio frequency output. It is
not (and does not need to be) an infinite source of electrons because
elecrtrons are not emitted by the antenna.

Where the voltage is there must be the electron emission.

Experiments with the photoelectric effect shown that no current below 10V.
But it apply to the flat cathode.
If the cathode is a wire the voltage is lower.

And what is with your antenna in sunny day?
S*

Even if there are a couple of electrons that jump off the antenna,
it is not going to cause a measurable effect. You need more than a
couple of electrons to have a measurable current, and it is not going
to happen at those voltages and daylight conditions.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Congratulations. You've discovered the counterpoise. That's a good
idea (but not necessary) for a monopole, where the grounded
counterpoise forms the missing element of the dipole.

No. The counterpiose is the ground.

How can a counterpoise or chassis serve as an infinite source of
electrons?

They work like the receiving antenna of the cristal radio. Electrons from
the air go into metal.

My god are you stupid, blinding, blazingly stupid.

So stupid you are the poster boy for stupid.

No such thing happens, you stupid, stupid person.

snip remaining stupid babble