Autoelectronic emission
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* |
Autoelectronic emission
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. |
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 |
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* |
Autoelectronic emission
"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* |
Autoelectronic emission
"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* |
Autoelectronic emission
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. |
Autoelectronic emission
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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* |
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. |
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 |
Autoelectronic emission
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. |
Autoelectronic emission
"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci ... 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* |
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. |
Autoelectronic emission
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:54:08 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: "Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci .. . 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 |
Autoelectronic emission
"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* |
Autoelectronic emission
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. |
Autoelectronic emission
"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* |
Autoelectronic emission
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. |
Autoelectronic emission
"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: 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. Air is not perfect insulator. Counterpoise has a big surface. 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. The selfcapacitance of an antenna is very small. You need a couple of electrons to have a measurable static voltage. For this reason the earth/chassis/counterpoise is necessary. S* |
Autoelectronic emission
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message ... "Rob" napisal w wiadomosci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: The selfcapacitance of an antenna is very small. You need a couple of electrons to have a measurable static voltage. For this reason the earth/chassis/counterpoise is necessary. S* Hello Szczepan. A dipole aerial doesn't need a counterpoise nor does it need any connection to earth/ground/counterpoise. I've kept quiet during the discussion because I don't think of my radio and aerial in terms of sub-atomic particles. For me, resonance, impendance and SWR are more significant. Have you considered taking your theories / discussions / cutting-and-pastings about sub-atomic particles and other kindred items to one of the physics newsgroups such as: alt.sci.amateur alt.sci.physics sci.physics I'd expect that you will find lots of people with whom you can discuss the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. Kindest regards, Ian. |
Autoelectronic emission
"Ian" napisał w wiadomości ... "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message ... "Rob" napisal w wiadomosci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: The selfcapacitance of an antenna is very small. You need a couple of electrons to have a measurable static voltage. For this reason the earth/chassis/counterpoise is necessary. S* Hello Szczepan. A dipole aerial doesn't need a counterpoise nor does it need any connection to earth/ground/counterpoise. Is it your transmitter: http://rf.circuitlab.org/2011/06/80m...e-antenna.html ? I've kept quiet during the discussion because I don't think of my radio and aerial in terms of sub-atomic particles. For me, resonance, impendance and SWR are more significant. Your dipole are exactly like the two Kundt's tube. There are "resonance, impendance and SWR". To demonstrate of the SWR the tube end must be porous. Air molecules work like the electrons. Have you considered taking your theories / discussions / cutting-and-pastings about sub-atomic particles and other kindred items to one of the physics newsgroups such as: alt.sci.amateur alt.sci.physics sci.physics I'd expect that you will find lots of people with whom you can discuss the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. Electrons are the subatomic particles. Radio is the only field where "plumber analogy" is totaly inadequate. Kindest regards, S* |
Autoelectronic emission
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. . Is it your transmitter: http://rf.circuitlab.org/2011/06/80m...e-antenna.html Definitely not. That's a full wave aerial. It's an FM transmitter. I use SSB and CW. Your dipole are exactly like the two Kundt's tube. There are "resonance, impendance and SWR". To demonstrate of the SWR the tube end must be porous. Air molecules work like the electrons. The ends of my aerials are not porous. According to Wikipedia, Kundt's tubes are used to measure the speed of sound in a gas or solid rod. Have you considered taking your theories / discussions / cutting-and-pastings about sub-atomic particles and other kindred items to one of the physics newsgroups such as: alt.sci.amateur alt.sci.physics sci.physics I'd expect that you will find lots of people with whom you can discuss the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. |
Autoelectronic emission
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 |
Autoelectronic emission
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Air is not perfect insulator. Counterpoise has a big surface. No such thing happens, you stupid, stupid person. snip remaining stupid babble |
Autoelectronic emission
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Is it your transmitter: http://rf.circuitlab.org/2011/06/80m...e-antenna.html You are so stupid you can't even understand a picture, you stupid idiot. snip remaining stupid babble |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com