UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Here you are the simple:
http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/yre/agency...e/rap-nuc2.htm

Are the dipole elements symmetrical?
It seems that one of them is a counterpoise.
S*
Wiki says that a rectenna is "a dipole antenna with a diode connected across
the dipole elements".
A dipole is a balanced, symmetrical aerial and does not have a counterpoise.
I can't be responsible for you being unable to understand what
"symmetrical", "balanced" and "counterpoise" mean. I can suggest / recommend
that you acquire a reference book on aerials from the ARRL or RSGB. You'd
find them immensely helpful.
Regards, Ian.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

See:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=j3h...434678&f=false

S*
Ah - we're back to the rectenna which is defined in Wiki thus "A simple
rectenna element consists of a dipole antenna with a diode connected
across the dipole elements".

Here you are the simple:
http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/yre/agency...e/rap-nuc2.htm

Are the dipole elements symmetrical?

Yes

It seems that one of them is a counterpoise.

Why? I see symmetrical elements.

What you can also see here is that this is another example of what
I wrote earlier: there is a circle in the schematic starting at the
diode where you can go around with DC current and end at the same
point.
This circle is where the DC current flows, not from the elements into
the air.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I don't care what people have written in the 19th century. Please
stop bringing that up. I am only interested in how things are
explained today.

Everything was discovered in XIX (for the radio):

But then later it was found that the first discoveries were not
entirely correctly described.

EM was "correctly" described by Heaviside and Pointing in XIX century before
the Hertz experiment.

"The electrical waves produced by the oscillations at A traveled along
the
wires and were reflected at the far ends. Lodge knew that the longer
spark
at B3 was due to what he called the "recoil impulse" or "recoil kick" at
the
end of the wires where the waves were reflected.[4] At spark gap B3 both
the
incident wave and the reflected wave had their maximum values and were in
phase. This produced a voltage twice as large as the voltage at spark gap
A.
From: http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm

Is it still true?

A reflected wave along a nonterminated transmission line will result in
doubled voltage at the open end.

Not always. The "nonterminated transmission line" may be the Lodge's wire or
Your antenna (short dipole).
In your antenna the electrons are not reflected and do not destroy your
transmitter. They JUMP OFF Periodically = pressure waves.
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).

If yes, than you must admit that the leakage must be stronger at "recoil
kick" when the voltage is doubled.
"So there is the unsymmetrical flow of electrons." Do you agree?

But here you are talking complete hogwash again. The effect you describe
above has nothing to do with leakage or unsymmetrical flow of electrons.

In each textbooks is the Richardson equation. The electron field emission is
voltage and temperature dependent.

Do you understand the Pointing explanation that nothing if flowing in the
conductor?

For me: " But then later it was found that the first (Pointing) discoveries
were not
entirely correctly described."
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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


Here you are the simple:
http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/yre/agency...e/rap-nuc2.htm

Are the dipole elements symmetrical?

Yes

Mechanically.
Also electrically?

It seems that one of them is a counterpoise.

Why? I see symmetrical elements.

I see that the voltages are not symmetrical when the diode shines.
I bet that is the such orientation vs a oven that is the symmetry and no
shine.

What you can also see here is that this is another example of what
I wrote earlier: there is a circle in the schematic starting at the
diode where you can go around with DC current and end at the same
point.
This circle is where the DC current flows, not from the elements into
the air.

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.
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

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.

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On Friday, July 27, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the
current must flow in the air.

Maxwell did not believe in current flowing "in the air". That's why he used the concept of "displacement current". He was ignorant of photon energy flow being the equivalent of current flow. Nowadays, we know that when it appears that coherent current is flowing in the air or indeed through any dielectric (including free space), it is actually photons that are doing the flowing, i.e. photons are accomplishing the energy transfer *as if* current were flowing through charge carriers. All EM field/wave phenomena involve quantized photons.

For those who still believe in displacement current, it is easy to prove that, under certain conditions, the displacement current would have to violate the speed of light limit in order to accomplish the energy transfer in the measured time.

Do you understand the Pointing explanation that nothing if flowing in
the conductor?

Quoting "Fields and Waves ...", by Ramo & Whinnery: "A perfect conductor is usually understood to be a material in which there is no electric field at any frequency. Maxwell's equations ensure that there is then also no time-varying magnetic field in the perfect conductor."

In the non-perfect real world, something is flowing in the skin effect depth of a conductor which is the cause of the power losses in the conductor.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Rob" napisa³ 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.

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.

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).
Do you try?

(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.
Are they?

S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
(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.
Are they?

I hope not! I don't like electrons injected in my antenna.
It is very costly because of all the damaged equipment.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Friday, July 27, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the
current must flow in the air.

Maxwell did not believe in current flowing "in the air". That's why he used
the concept of "displacement current". He was ignorant of photon energy
flow being the equivalent of current flow. Nowadays, we know that when it
appears that coherent current is flowing in the air or indeed through any
dielectric (including free space), it is actually photons that are doing
the flowing, i.e. photons are accomplishing the energy transfer *as if*
current were flowing through charge carriers. All EM field/wave phenomena
involve quantized photons.

For those who still believe in displacement current, it is easy to prove
that, under certain conditions, the displacement current would have to
violate the speed of light limit in order to accomplish the energy transfer
in the measured time.

Do you understand the Pointing explanation that nothing if flowing in
the conductor?

Quoting "Fields and Waves ...", by Ramo & Whinnery: "A perfect conductor is
usually understood to be a material in which there is no electric field at
any frequency. Maxwell's equations ensure that there is then also no
time-varying magnetic field in the perfect conductor."

In the non-perfect real world, something is flowing in the skin effect
depth of a conductor which is the cause of the power losses in the
conductor.

Why you do not like the electrons?
For what you need the next " the equivalent of current flow".
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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*.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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.

"Energy transfer": "Umov was the first who introduced in physics such basic
concepts as speed and direction of movement of energy,".
" In his first works of this period, Umov considered potential energy as
kinetic energy of some environments "imperceptible for us"."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Umov

Photons as the wave packet transfer the energy in the same way as the sound
waves.
In radars are "pulses". Light is not coherent. It consists of pulses or
photons. The same is in sonars.

For what you need the new "photons".
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Photons as the wave packet transfer the energy in the same way as the
sound waves.
S*
Good morning Szczepan.
Sound waves propagation through a gaseous medium. No medium - no sound wave.

Light waves and radio waves can propagate without a gaseous medium.
Please get a textbook and read some theory. If you choose to say, once
again, that textbooks are for children then do remember that children can
learn and understand.

Regards, Ian.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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.

Exactly like with the sound waves.

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.

You assume that there no field electron emission. Why?

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.

Nobody know what the EM waves are. Write about electrons.

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.

They migrate if the voltage is:
"Field emission was explained by quantum tunneling of electrons in the late
1920s. This was one of the triumphs of the nascent quantum mechanics. The
theory of field emission from bulk metals was proposed by Ralph H. Fowler
and Lothar Wolfgang Nordheim.[1] A family of approximate equations,
"Fowler-Nordheim equations", is named after them."

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.:)

Each your antennas are the electron emitter:
"How would the ideal field emitter look like? It should be very long and
very thin, made of conductive material with high mechanical strength, be
robust, and cheap and easy to process". From:
http://ipn2.epfl.ch/CHBU/NTfieldemission1.htm

The voltage doubling is only theoretical. In reality the voltage is rising
to the level necessary for effective field emissions.
If no proper voltage no radiation.
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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.

You assume that there no field electron emission. Why?

Because if it was there, you would see the sparks and corona effects.

Each your antennas are the electron emitter:
"How would the ideal field emitter look like? It should be very long and
very thin, made of conductive material with high mechanical strength, be
robust, and cheap and easy to process". From:

Of course we all know that antennas exist that are not long and thin,
and still work very well. Well, we all know that except you the stubborn
Pole.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:59:06 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Light is not coherent.

On the contrary, any single frequency light, i.e. single color light, is coherent. Most of the laser light in an interferometer is coherent. Otherwise, steady-state interference could not be achieved.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:58:40 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
You assume that there no field electron emission. Why?

Please don't tell me what I am assuming because you are invariably wrong. As I (and Richard Feynman) have told you before, the fields emitted by electrons consist of photons. Electrons escaping a transmitting antenna are a non-coherent corona discharge. Photons escaping a transmitting antenna are coherent RF energy.

Back in the early 20th century when spark gap transmitters were being used, the spark gap function, like lightning, generated non-coherent photons which filled the RF spectrum. Nowadays, a CW signal is mostly coherent with a small amount of non-coherence associated with the transient rise and fall times.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

You assume that there no field electron emission. Why?

Because if it was there, you would see the sparks and corona effects.

It is better to measure it:
"Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Coming back to the effectiveness of baluns, the final decider is the
amount of unwanted RF current on the outside of the coax shield,
compared to the wanted current in the antenna element. The only way to
find that out for sure is to *measure* it, in the system as installed.

I'm a big fan of RF current meters based on simple snap-on ferrite
beads. Add a few turns of wire, one resistor, a diode detector, and you
have a real measuring instrument. It's a real eye-opener to be able to
snap the meter over any cable and *see* the common mode RF current.

Have you the result of counting of electrons which go forwards and backwards
at the feed point?
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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

You assume that there no field electron emission. Why?

Because if it was there, you would see the sparks and corona effects.

It is better to measure it:

Why don't you try that?

"Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Coming back to the effectiveness of baluns, the final decider is the
amount of unwanted RF current on the outside of the coax shield,
compared to the wanted current in the antenna element. The only way to
find that out for sure is to *measure* it, in the system as installed.

I'm a big fan of RF current meters based on simple snap-on ferrite
beads. Add a few turns of wire, one resistor, a diode detector, and you
have a real measuring instrument. It's a real eye-opener to be able to
snap the meter over any cable and *see* the common mode RF current.

Have you the result of counting of electrons which go forwards and backwards
at the feed point?

You have the misunderstanding that the current on the outside of the
coax cable is the result of electron emission by the antenna. This
is of course not true. It is the result of imperfect symmetry or
imperfect balun operation.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Photons as the wave packet transfer the energy in the same way as the
sound waves.
S*
Good morning Szczepan.
Sound waves propagation through a gaseous medium. No medium - no sound
wave.

Light waves and radio waves can propagate without a gaseous medium.
Please get a textbook and read some theory. If you choose to say, once
again, that textbooks are for children then do remember that children can
learn and understand.

"Electric currents that oscillate at radio frequencies have special
properties not shared by direct current or alternating current of lower
frequencies. The energy in an RF current can radiate off a conductor into
space as electromagnetic waves (radio waves); this is the basis of radio
technology."

As you see something radiate off a conductor into space. So the something
must be in the space.
Are such issue (special properties) for children?

S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

"Rob" napisa3 w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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.

You assume that there no field electron emission. Why?

Because if it was there, you would see the sparks and corona effects.

It is better to measure it:

Why don't you try that?

"Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Coming back to the effectiveness of baluns, the final decider is the
amount of unwanted RF current on the outside of the coax shield,
compared to the wanted current in the antenna element. The only way to
find that out for sure is to *measure* it, in the system as installed.

I'm a big fan of RF current meters based on simple snap-on ferrite
beads. Add a few turns of wire, one resistor, a diode detector, and you
have a real measuring instrument. It's a real eye-opener to be able to
snap the meter over any cable and *see* the common mode RF current.

Have you the result of counting of electrons which go forwards and
backwards
at the feed point?

You have the misunderstanding that the current on the outside of the
coax cable is the result of electron emission by the antenna. This
is of course not true. It is the result of imperfect symmetry or
imperfect balun operation.

But now is possible to measure the currents. Somebody wrote: "I'm a big fan
of RF current meters".
Do you know the results?
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Electric currents that oscillate at radio frequencies have special
properties not shared by direct current or alternating current of lower
frequencies. S*

Hello Szczepan.
Your unattributed quote is vague and incorrect. Care to correct it?
Regards, Ian.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:59:06 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Light is not coherent.

On the contrary, any single frequency light, i.e. single color light, is
coherent. Most of the laser light in an interferometer is coherent.
Otherwise, steady-state interference could not be achieved.

All natural sources produce the damped waves. They are not coherent at all
frequences.
Only today radio transmitter and free electron laser are able to produce
undamped waves.
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:58:40 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
You assume that there no field electron emission. Why?

Please don't tell me what I am assuming because you are invariably wrong.
As I (and Richard Feynman) have told you before, the fields emitted by
electrons consist of photons. Electrons escaping a transmitting antenna are
a non-coherent corona discharge. Photons escaping a transmitting antenna
are coherent RF energy.

"Feynman has been called the "Great Explainer".[23] He gained a reputation
for taking great care when giving explanations to his students and for
making it a moral duty to make the topic accessible. His guiding principle
was that if a topic could not be explained in a freshman lecture, it was not
yet fully understood".

Back in the early 20th century when spark gap transmitters were being used,
the spark gap function, like lightning, generated non-coherent photons
which filled the RF spectrum.

It were the damped waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
For Planck and Einstein that wave packets were the portion of energy. The
name photon have many definitions.

Nowadays, a CW signal is mostly coherent with a small amount of
non-coherence associated with the transient rise and fall times.
Are in CW a photons?
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Nowadays, a CW signal is mostly coherent with a small amount of
non-coherence associated with the transient rise and fall times.
Are in CW a photons?
S*

CW = Coherent Wave.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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.

Exactly like with the sound waves.

No, not quite.

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.

You assume that there no field electron emission. Why?

Because there isn't any because field electron emission is caused by
an electrostatic field and antennas have electromagnetic fields.

You have been told this several times; why do you continue to ask the
stupid question?

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.

Nobody know what the EM waves are. Write about electrons.

Everybody reading the news group except you knows what EM waves are.

Electrons have nothing to do with a propagating EM wave.

You have been told this several times; why do you continue to make this
stupid statement?

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.

They migrate if the voltage is:
"Field emission was explained by quantum tunneling of electrons in the late
1920s. This was one of the triumphs of the nascent quantum mechanics. The
theory of field emission from bulk metals was proposed by Ralph H. Fowler
and Lothar Wolfgang Nordheim.[1] A family of approximate equations,
"Fowler-Nordheim equations", is named after them."

This has nothing to do with antennas because field electron emission is
caused by an electrostatic field and antennas have electromagnetic fields.

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.:)

Each your antennas are the electron emitter:

No, they are not.

"How would the ideal field emitter look like? It should be very long and
very thin, made of conductive material with high mechanical strength, be
robust, and cheap and easy to process". From:
http://ipn2.epfl.ch/CHBU/NTfieldemission1.htm

Not all antennas are either long or thin; loop antennas work just fine.

The voltage doubling is only theoretical. In reality the voltage is rising
to the level necessary for effective field emissions.
If no proper voltage no radiation.

This pure, babbling, nonsense.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about how anything works.

You don't even understand what an antenna is or the difference between
an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field.

Electrostatic and magnetostatic fields are created by DC.

An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at its
teminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna
and also coverts the electromagnetic energy which antenna intercepts
into AC electrical energy at it's terminals.

That is ELECTROMAGNETIC energy, not magnetostatic nor electrostatic
energy.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on anything in
any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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.

"Energy transfer": "Umov was the first who introduced in physics such basic
concepts as speed and direction of movement of energy,".
" In his first works of this period, Umov considered potential energy as
kinetic energy of some environments "imperceptible for us"."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Umov

And he was essentially wrong in the details as were most of the early
physicists.

Photons as the wave packet transfer the energy in the same way as the sound
waves.

No, it is not.

In radars are "pulses".

There is such a thing as CW radar which is not pulses, so you are wrong
yet again.

Light is not coherent.

Whether or not light is coherent depends on the source of the light;
sunlight and candles are not coherent but lasars are coherent.

It consists of pulses or
photons.

A pulse and and photon are two entirely different things.

Light may or may not be pulsed, but it is always photons.

The same is in sonars.

No, sonar is like radar only in very general terms.

For what you need the new "photons".

For what you need a new brain because the one you have doesn't work.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about how anything works.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Photons as the wave packet transfer the energy in the same way as the
sound waves.
S*
Good morning Szczepan.
Sound waves propagation through a gaseous medium. No medium - no sound
wave.

Light waves and radio waves can propagate without a gaseous medium.
Please get a textbook and read some theory. If you choose to say, once
again, that textbooks are for children then do remember that children can
learn and understand.

"Electric currents that oscillate at radio frequencies have special
properties not shared by direct current or alternating current of lower
frequencies. The energy in an RF current can radiate off a conductor into
space as electromagnetic waves (radio waves); this is the basis of radio
technology."

Wrong, AC at ANY frequency can radiate off a conductor into space as
electromagnetic waves.

As you see something radiate off a conductor into space. So the something
must be in the space.
Are such issue (special properties) for children?

None of that made any sense what so ever and was nothing but gibberish.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about how anything works.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:59:06 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Light is not coherent.

On the contrary, any single frequency light, i.e. single color light, is
coherent. Most of the laser light in an interferometer is coherent.
Otherwise, steady-state interference could not be achieved.

All natural sources produce the damped waves. They are not coherent at all
frequences.

You have no clue what the word "damped" means, do you?

The Sun, which is a natural source, does not produce damped waves.

Being damped and being coherent are two independant properties.

Only today radio transmitter and free electron laser are able to produce
undamped waves.

Wrong again because you have no clue what the word "damped" means; almost
EVERYTHING produces undamped waves.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about how anything works.

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on anything in
any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

However, since you have no understanding of anything, you would be better
to start with a grade school textbook as your knowledge is that of a
five year old.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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


"Electric currents that oscillate at radio frequencies have special
properties not shared by direct current or alternating current of lower
frequencies. The energy in an RF current can radiate off a conductor into
space as electromagnetic waves (radio waves); this is the basis of radio
technology."

Wrong, AC at ANY frequency can radiate off a conductor into space as
electromagnetic waves.

AC is in oscillating circuit (closed circuit). RF current is in an antenna
(open circuit).
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


"Electric currents that oscillate at radio frequencies have special
properties not shared by direct current or alternating current of lower
frequencies. The energy in an RF current can radiate off a conductor into
space as electromagnetic waves (radio waves); this is the basis of radio
technology."

Wrong, AC at ANY frequency can radiate off a conductor into space as
electromagnetic waves.

AC is in oscillating circuit (closed circuit). RF current is in an antenna
(open circuit).

Wrong again.