Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Why you do not like the electrons?

The electrons flowing trough the air are seen as the sparks.
I don't like them sparks.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
In your antenna the electrons are not reflected and do not destroy your
transmitter. They JUMP OFF Periodically = pressure waves.

Not in my antenna.
Not in your antenna either, because you have no antenna.

Also not in Heaviside-Pointing because there no electrons.

Babble; Jefimenko's equations describe how antennas work and there are
no jumping electrons involved.

Do not write that I claim it. It is the explanation by Faraday, Lorenz,
Tesla and Dirac. The all is in the each textbooks. But in different
chapters
(lessons).

But not in textbooks written today. Because today we know that no
electrons
are jumping off antennas.

The whole XX century was the century of intensive egzamination/explanation
of the field electron emmission.

No, it was the century of examination of elecromagnetic radiation; antennas
have nothing to do with field electron emmission as field electron emmission
is a result of electrostatic fields and antennas work on electromagnetic
radiation.

If not in your antenna than you should be able to explain what the electrons
do in your antenna if they are not reflected (VSWR = 1).

The electron in any antenna flow back and forth between the antenna terminal.

There are no electrons either jumping off of or onto an antenna.

This is a figment of your imagination.

VSWR has nothing to do with electrons and everything to do with
elecromagnetic fields.

Do you try?

Try what?


(maybe this evening they will, thunderstorms announced. but not because
of transmissions)

Your antenna goes into receiving.
But I do not know if the electrons are injected into your antenna.

Electrons may be injected into an antenna by a lighning strike, but that
has nothing to do with how antennas work.

Are they?

No, not other than by a lighning strike.

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the current
must
flow in the air. Of course sometimes is enough if only part flows in the
air. It is the leakage.
At HF the leakage is rather large.

But today we know that this is not true.
"A great deal of analytical and experimental work has been done over the
past 100 years on the design and performance of ground systems for
verticals. "
And in summary: "Depending on the character of the soil, it is possible
there may be some increase in soil conductivity as we go up in frequency
which might compensate a bit. "

"The purpose of the radial system is to divert current from the soil into
the radial conductors which have very low loss compared to soil. We can
calculate the current division between a radial system and the soil ".From:
http://www.kkn.net/dayton2004/HF_ver...6LF_Dayton.pdf

For me the current between the radial and soil (or air) is the leakage:

Is at HF the leakage rather large?

S*.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the current
must
flow in the air. Of course sometimes is enough if only part flows in the
air. It is the leakage.
At HF the leakage is rather large.

But today we know that this is not true.
"A great deal of analytical and experimental work has been done over the
past 100 years on the design and performance of ground systems for
verticals. "
And in summary: "Depending on the character of the soil, it is possible
there may be some increase in soil conductivity as we go up in frequency
which might compensate a bit. "

"The purpose of the radial system is to divert current from the soil into
the radial conductors which have very low loss compared to soil. We can
calculate the current division between a radial system and the soil ".From:
http://www.kkn.net/dayton2004/HF_ver...6LF_Dayton.pdf

For me the current between the radial and soil (or air) is the leakage:

Nope, you have no clue what is actually happening.

Is at HF the leakage rather large?

This is a nonsense question based on a total lack of understading of
what is really happening.

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


If not in your antenna than you should be able to explain what the
electrons
do in your antenna if they are not reflected (VSWR = 1).

The electron in any antenna flow back and forth between the antenna
terminal.

Are the voltages doubled at the ends?
S*

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Why you do not like the electrons?

The electrons flowing trough the air are seen as the sparks.
I don't like them sparks.

In vacuum they flow without sparks. They flow at low voltages (10V) and the
cold cathode. In air is the same.
Do you like such?
S*

On Friday, July 27, 2012 11:57:54 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Why you do not like the electrons?

I don't dislike electrons and have a bunch of them in my body. Without free electrons, antennas wouldn't be able to radiate photons.

For what you need the next " the equivalent of current flow".

Technically, current is defined as the movement of charged particles. Since photons don't carry an electric charge, they technically don't meet the definition. But since current flow implies energy transfer and photons are capable of energy transfer, one can come up with the concept of "equivalent current" corresponding to photon movement. Thus the "current flow" through a capacitor is explained by photon flow rather than displacement current.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


If not in your antenna than you should be able to explain what the
electrons
do in your antenna if they are not reflected (VSWR = 1).

The electron in any antenna flow back and forth between the antenna
terminal.

Are the voltages doubled at the ends?
S*

Not all antennas have ends so your question is basically meaningless.

For those antennas that do have ends, the voltage and current distribution
depends on the length of the antenna in terms of wavelengths and can be
anything.

On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:50:32 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Are the voltages doubled at the ends?

The voltage doubling at the ends of a dipole is simple to understand. A dipole is a standing wave antenna. When the forward wave from the feedpoint encounters the open-circuit at the end of the dipole wire, a reflection takes place where the reflected voltage is in phase with the forward voltage and the reflected current is 180 degrees out of phase with the forward current..

At the end of the dipole, |Vfor|=|Vref| and |Ifor|=|Iref|. So the total voltage and total current at the ends of a dipole a

Vtot = Vfor + Vref = 2*Vfor = 2*Vref

Itot = Ifor - Iref = 0

And of course, no current is going to flow into the open-circuit at the end of the dipole so the total energy in the magnetic field at that point is zero.

All of the energy in the EM waves migrates to the electric field and that's why we get a standing wave voltage maximum at the ends of a 1/2WL dipole.

However, under certain corona conditions, when the impedance at the end of the dipole conductor is much less than infinite, electrons actually migrate from the antenna into the conductive air, e.g. salty fog on the coast. But this is undesirable non-coherent behavior unless you are building a Tesla coil.

I once saw a mobile antenna emitting a red corona glow in the fog on HWY 1 near Monterrey, CA. A traffic cop stopped him for having a "red light" that could be seen by oncoming traffic.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Why you do not like the electrons?

The electrons flowing trough the air are seen as the sparks.
I don't like them sparks.

In vacuum they flow without sparks. They flow at low voltages (10V) and the
cold cathode. In air is the same.
Do you like such?

My antenna is not in vacuum. I don't like to see or hear the effects
of sparks or other discharges from my antenna.