Jeefaw K. Effkay wrote:
On 02/11/2014 20:15, wrote:

The purpose of a transmission line is move RF energy from one place
to another without creating an electromagnetic field.

But a balanced transmission line creates two electromagnetic fields
which cancel one another, Shirley?

What is the value of a canceled check?

If a balanced transmission line created an electromagnetic field, there
would be losses in the line as the line is the only source of energy.

Again neglecting I^2R losses.

--
Jim Pennino

On 02/11/2014 22:03, wrote:
Jeefaw K. Effkay wrote:
On 02/11/2014 20:15, wrote:

The purpose of a transmission line is move RF energy from one place
to another without creating an electromagnetic field.

But a balanced transmission line creates two electromagnetic fields
which cancel one another, Shirley?

What is the value of a canceled check?

You mean a cancelled cheque? :-)

If a balanced transmission line created an electromagnetic field, there
would be losses in the line as the line is the only source of energy.

Again neglecting I^2R losses.

What about losses due to imbalances - for example, coupling into nearby
conductors due to poor installation, which presumeably derives from
either of the two electromagnetic fields which aren't generated? :-)

PS - sorry about the Subject line. I'm sure you know who's responsible
for that.

On 11/2/2014 5:03 PM, wrote:
Jeefaw K. Effkay wrote:
On 02/11/2014 20:15, wrote:

The purpose of a transmission line is move RF energy from one place
to another without creating an electromagnetic field.

But a balanced transmission line creates two electromagnetic fields
which cancel one another, Shirley?

What is the value of a canceled check?

If a balanced transmission line created an electromagnetic field, there
would be losses in the line as the line is the only source of energy.

Again neglecting I^2R losses.

Who ever said a balanced transmission line does not create an EM field?
Here is an illustration of the EM field of a transmission line...

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-w...p3.htm#fig3-14

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
On 11/2/2014 5:03 PM, wrote:
Jeefaw K. Effkay wrote:
On 02/11/2014 20:15, wrote:

The purpose of a transmission line is move RF energy from one place
to another without creating an electromagnetic field.

But a balanced transmission line creates two electromagnetic fields
which cancel one another, Shirley?

What is the value of a canceled check?

If a balanced transmission line created an electromagnetic field, there
would be losses in the line as the line is the only source of energy.

Again neglecting I^2R losses.

Who ever said a balanced transmission line does not create an EM field?
Here is an illustration of the EM field of a transmission line...

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-w...p3.htm#fig3-14


It is an illustration of **** poor wording. What is depicted is NOT an
electromagnetic field, i.e radio waves. It is an illustration of an
electric field and a magnetic field and is correct in that aspect.

It is also from a dumbed down US Army training publication and I can show
you lots of Army manuals that do not conform to accepted principals and
language usage left over from my days as an Army instructor.


--
Jim Pennino

wrote in message
news
It is an illustration of **** poor wording. What is depicted is NOT an
electromagnetic field, i.e radio waves.

And there we have it, encapsulated so neatly by those words of Alexander
Pope ...

"A little learning is a dangerous thing
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring"

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
news
It is an illustration of **** poor wording. What is depicted is NOT an
electromagnetic field, i.e radio waves.

And there we have it, encapsulated so neatly by those words of Alexander
Pope ...

"A little learning is a dangerous thing
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring"

What we have is yet more hot air from the resident gas bag who does
not understand the difference between an electric field, a magnetic
field and an electromagetic field nor an AC voltage and electromagnetic
radiation.



--
Jim Pennino

wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
news
It is an illustration of **** poor wording. What is depicted is NOT an
electromagnetic field, i.e radio waves.

And there we have it, encapsulated so neatly by those words of Alexander
Pope ...

"A little learning is a dangerous thing
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring"

What we have is yet more hot air from the resident gas bag who does
not understand the difference between an electric field, a magnetic
field and an electromagetic field nor an AC voltage and electromagnetic
radiation.


"A little learning is a dangerous thing
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring"

QED

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
One of the many.
His problem seems to be that, as people pass him helpings from the spring,
he spits them out.
Either his thirst is imaginary or he can't digest it.

Once again, it is from your own keyboard that the abuse originates, the very
abuse that you seek to lay at my door.

Why do you make such a fool of yourself by representing yourself as someone
who has the mind of a 5-year-old?

wrote in message
...
What we have is yet more hot air from the resident gas bag who does
not understand the difference between an electric field, a magnetic
field and an electromagetic field nor an AC voltage and electromagnetic
radiation.

Now I begin to understand where the boundaries of your knowledge lie, and
why
you present yourself as a redneck when you hit those boundaries.

You are another to whom I exhort a study period leading to an understanding
of Maxwell's Equations because ...

1. Whenever there is a changing electric field, there is also a changing
magnetic
field and hence an electromagnetic field.

2. Whenever there is a changing magnetic field, there is also a changing
electric
field and hence an electromagnetic field.

That will suffice for the moment.

Meanwhile, write out longhand 1000 times,
"Jimp must not be cheeky to his teacher".

Please be aware that there are two versions of Maxwell's Equations, one for
in vacuo, and the other in a media, because a notorious Brit redneck has
recently made a fool of himself in that respect.

In conclusion, Old Chap, it is far better for the health of amateur radio in
general,
and this NG in particular for you to engage in gentlemanly discussion than
it is to present
yourself as a disruptive redneck.

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
What we have is yet more hot air from the resident gas bag who does
not understand the difference between an electric field, a magnetic
field and an electromagetic field nor an AC voltage and electromagnetic
radiation.

Now I begin to understand where the boundaries of your knowledge lie, and
why
you present yourself as a redneck when you hit those boundaries.

You are another to whom I exhort a study period leading to an understanding
of Maxwell's Equations because ...

1. Whenever there is a changing electric field, there is also a changing
magnetic
field and hence an electromagnetic field.

Wrong; no electromagnetic field.

If that were true one could create an electromagnetic field just by
waving a battery around, and you can not do that.

2. Whenever there is a changing magnetic field, there is also a changing
electric
field and hence an electromagnetic field.

Wrong; no electromagnetic field.

If that were true one could create an electromagnetic field just by
waving a magnet around, and you can not do that.

That will suffice for the moment.

Yes, that is quite enough babbling nonsense to prove to one and all you
have no clue that an electric field, a magnetic field, and an
electromagnetic field are three different things.

An electromagnetic field does not form just because there is an electric
field and a magnetic field in proximity.

Meanwhile, write out longhand 1000 times,
"Jimp must not be cheeky to his teacher".

**** off and die, you long winded, babbling, gas bag.

snip remaing gas bag babble



--
Jim Pennino