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

The oscillatory flow of electrons is inherently not symmetric.

You keep claiming that. But you don't explain why there is no
nonlinearity in the antenna. When the antenna is nonlinear, as you
claim, there must be intermodulation in the antenna. But in a well
constructed antenna, there is no intermodulation. So there is
no unsymmetric flow of electrons.

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):
"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?

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?
S*

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.

"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.

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.

"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*

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)

"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*

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.

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.

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*