Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message ... I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are threatened. This continues to be illustrated tonight. A changing electric field produces a retarded changing magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field produces a retarded changing electric field. One cannot exist without the other, as demonstrated by Maxwell's Equations. By that logic you could simply spin a permanent magnet and generate an electromagnetic field, but you can't. (And this is where the thinking behind the crossed field antenna was wrong, because the changing electric field produced by the capacitor plates produced the retarded changing magnetic field at all points in the same space, and it was unnecessary to introduced the (short antenna! (qv)) attempts at producing the changing magnetic field.) In the balanced transmission line, there are two travelling electromagnetic waves out of phase with each other. Where some people are confused, and their confusion gives way to infantile outbursts, is that the superposition of the two fields results in nearly total external field nullification resulting in little, if no, radiation and little, if no, near fields. However, both of the electromagnetic waves continue to exist and are guided by the two wires of the feeder. Wrong. In the case of coaxial feeders, the electromagnetic wave exists in the dielectric. Wrong. (Let's not even get round to discussing slot antennae or dielectric antennae, their being no conductors in either case! :-) ) Wrong. -- Jim Pennino |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
news ![]() By that logic you could simply spin a permanent magnet and generate an electromagnetic field, but you can't. If you spin your permanent magnet at frequencies such that the associated wavelength is a million metres, or thereabouts, then it would be such a short antenna that there would not be enough radiation from it to be detectable, (remeber that short antennae are poor radiators, qv) But, if you were to spin it at 1000 revs per sec (60,000 revs per minute) then it would be a different matter. How about attaching it to the cold side of a jet engine, and analysing its radiation with your speccy, OM? |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"gareth" wrote in message
... wrote in message news ![]() By that logic you could simply spin a permanent magnet and generate an electromagnetic field, but you can't. If you spin your permanent magnet at frequencies such that the associated wavelength is a million metres, or thereabouts, then it would be such a short antenna that there would not be enough radiation from it to be detectable, (remeber that short antennae are poor radiators, qv) But, if you were to spin it at 1000 revs per sec (60,000 revs per minute) then it would be a different matter. As I was driving away this morning, I realised that I'd typoed, and then misled myself about the possibilty of using a jet engine. Nobody's perfect! I had meant o say to spin at 1000MHz, or 1,000,000 revs per sec, for the example. Apologies. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"gareth" wrote in message
... "gareth" wrote in message ... wrote in message news ![]() By that logic you could simply spin a permanent magnet and generate an electromagnetic field, but you can't. If you spin your permanent magnet at frequencies such that the associated wavelength is a million metres, or thereabouts, then it would be such a short antenna that there would not be enough radiation from it to be detectable, (remeber that short antennae are poor radiators, qv) But, if you were to spin it at 1000 revs per sec (60,000 revs per minute) then it would be a different matter. As I was driving away this morning, I realised that I'd typoed, and then misled myself about the possibilty of using a jet engine. Nobody's perfect! I had meant o say to spin at 1000MHz, or 1,000,000 revs per sec, for the example. For god's sake!!!! or 1,000,000,000 revs per sec!!!!!!!!! |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed. | Antenna | |||
short antennae | Antenna | |||
The philosophy of short antennae | Antenna | |||
Reductio ad absurdum - short antennae do not radiate well | Antenna | |||
Short Antennae | Antenna |