|
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
Those who claim that there is no magnetic field in a feeder,
balanced or otherise, must have been playing truant on the days that Maxwell's Equations were being taught. |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
gareth wrote:
Those who claim that there is no magnetic field in a feeder, balanced or otherise, must have been playing truant on the days that Maxwell's Equations were being taught. What in the world are you bloviating about now? The statement was there is an electric field but no ELECTROMAGNETIC field in a "feeder", or more properly, a transmission line other than in a waveguide. You do understand that an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field are three different things? The purpose of a transmission line is move RF energy from one place to another without creating an electromagnetic field. -- Jim Pennino |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
|
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
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 |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
|
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... On 02/11/2014 20:15, wrote: You do understand that an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field are three different things? That is part of the problem, he doesn't seem to. There's no evidence of that, for static fields have never been part of the discussion, and changing fields of either sort will generate retarded changing fields of the other sort. Why do you always have this compulsion to make things personal? Why do you behave like that? Oh, he will claim otherwise but I am sure you are correct. Why do you always have this compulsion to make things personal? Why do you behave like that? He seems to think that Maxwell's Equations have a wider application than they do, Maxwell's Equations describe all electrical phenomena, for both static and dynamic fields, both in vacuo and in media. not the first time he has had issues with Maxwell, if memory serves. Why do you always have this compulsion to make things personal? Why do you behave like that? Expect abuse from him if you try to educate him, it is a thankless task. That has never happened, although it is a much repeated mantra of yours and actually is abuse from you. You need to accept that disagreeing with me on a technical point is NOT educating me, especially when you are so wrong, as above. Given his attitude, it is no surprise he has failed to learn much over the years. Why do you always have this compulsion to make things personal? Why do you behave like that? |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
|
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
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 |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
rickman wrote in :
I think the expression in the UK is "tosser", no? Yes. Yes it is. :) |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
|
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
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 |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
wrote in message
... 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" |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
gareth wrote:
wrote in message ... 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 |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
wrote in message
... gareth wrote: wrote in message ... 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 |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
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. |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
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 |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
|
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
wrote in message
... **** off and die, you long winded, babbling, gas bag. As I suggested before, the reaction of an ignorant redneck. You behaved in the same manner towards me when I posted a reference in rra.homebrew about laying down etch resist using a 3D printer (the bit that interested me) by going on and on and on and on about the original article being about flexible PCB, when that was not relevant to my posts. Why do you behave in such a childish manner? Seriously, you need to get a foundation in Maxwell's Equations and not the source of your present beliefs which seem to owe more to Dr.Seuss than they do to any scientific knowledge. |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. .. wrote in : **** off and die, you long winded, babbling, gas bag. Don't let him get to you.. You've done enough to leave a record, I've seen Usenet posts persist for years. Anyone who encounters this for the next ten years will also see your efforts to correct it. You don't need to put yourself through that now unless you really like the pain. Being ignorant yourself, and with a tirade of posts that are not at all relevant to amateur radio, you make the mistake of siding with your fellow in ignorance. |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
|
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Irv Finkleman VE6BP wrote:
wrote: gareth wrote: (snipped for brevity( **** off and die, you long winded, babbling, gas bag. snip remaing gas bag babble Gee, I wish I'd said that! Well said! It's never too late... -- Rick |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... I've been hinting at that but he knows better ;-) He seems to think Maxwell agrees with him, of course Maxwell's maths' skills were a bit more advanced. Even with a suitable clue he continued his folly. Having, I suspect, realised he was out of his depth he tried to bluff his way out. Being familiar with his tactics, I've just let him run, like playing a fish. He is already swimming in circles in a keep net, why worry about landing him. ;-) Once again, Brian, Old Man, it is from you that the abuse originates out-of-the-blue. I suspect that this time it is because of your faux pas about Maxwell's Equations, firstly by your claim that they do not apply to all electrical phenomena, and secondly the mistake that you made when reading up on Google not to realise that there were some non-zero differentials in static fields when dealing with the version of the equations for fields in media. I did wonder how long it would be before there would be an attempt at a smokescreen by you after I tried to teach you about the subject, for it is noticeable that in what you have posted above there is no technical contribution, only an infantile outburst. As to your closing remarks, you repeatedly make snide comments about one who is the Chief Stirrer in these NG, and those remarks suggest that it is you, although you haven't realised yet that there has been no playing along, for I have been playing the part of the patient schoolteacher dealing with the unruly and disruptive infant that you are. |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
"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? |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
|
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
|
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
... En el artículo , escribió: gareth wrote: Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring" What we have is yet more hot air from the resident gas bag who, funnily enough, used "Pierian Spring" as one of his many pseudonyms when trolling via the anonymising new server Aioe.org, from which he was eventually banned. Untrue |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
En el artículo , rickman
escribió: Oh, I think the expression in the UK is "tosser", no? 'Tosser' is quite a mild insult over here. It's roughly analogous to 'idiot'. Though the act of tossing, or tossing off, requires the tosser to be able to achieve erection, and it was established a while ago that the subject being discussed has problems in that department. -- (\_/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , escribió: Army manuals that do not conform to accepted principals It would help if you spelt 'principles' correctly. The word is spelled correctly, it is just the wrong word but I'm not sure what wheat has to do with anything... -- Jim Pennino |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
wrote in message
... Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artículo , escribió: Army manuals that do not conform to accepted principals It would help if you spelt 'principles' correctly. The word is spelled correctly, it is just the wrong word but I'm not sure what wheat has to do with anything... It is simply that you have met your match for infantile outbursts. |
Lamentable ignorance over in Yankland?
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
... Though the act of tossing, or tossing off, requires the tosser to be able to achieve erection, and it was established a while ago that the subject being discussed has problems in that department. What is the source of your information, other than the make-believe world of someone with the mind of a 5-year-old? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com