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