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.

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

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?

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 20:15, wrote:
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?

That is part of the problem, he doesn't seem to.

Oh, he will claim otherwise but I am sure you are correct.

He seems to think that Maxwell's Equations have a wider application than
they do, not the first time he has had issues with Maxwell, if memory
serves.

Expect abuse from him if you try to educate him, it is a thankless task.
Given his attitude, it is no surprise he has failed to learn
much over the years.

"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?

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 3:15 PM, wrote:
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?

I don't get why he is talking about wanking in wankland. Is that a
common topic for him? Oh, I think the expression in the UK is "tosser",
no?

--

Rick

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 in :

I think the expression in the UK is "tosser",
no?


Yes. Yes it is.