|
Do you have a quote showing exactly what Tom said, in context?
Roy Lewallen, W7EL Richard Harrison wrote: Art Unwin wrote: "What did he say that was wrong?" Recently Tom argued with Yuri that loading coils must have the same current in and out. Circuit theory does not directly apply in all cases due to the possibility of a reflected wave on the coil and due to radiation from a loading coil. Did Tom ever admit that it`s possible that current into one end of the coil does not necessarily equal the current at its other end? Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Art Unwin wrote: "What did he say that was wrong?" I said more than that!, Ae you cherry picking again? You did not prove your case against Tom in your allegation, period Now you scurried away to something else without justifying that your original is correct and Tom is wrong! Climbing towers to tighten nuts under direction does not make you an antenna expert where as Tom has proved himself amoung the amateur community time over time. Recently Tom argued with Yuri that loading coils must have the same current in and out. Circuit theory does not directly apply in all cases due to the possibility of a reflected wave on the coil and due to radiation from a loading coil. Did Tom ever admit that it`s possible that current into one end of the coil does not necessarily equal the current at its other end? I haven't seen a posting from Tom on this newsgroup for a very long time. Did you confront him to his face about this or are you talking about him in his absence? Go to EHAM and confront him like a man especially if this original confrontation occured else where. Ifyou have a problem with some one about something then talk to him directly instead of throwing mud when he isn't looking. There have been many statements made about Tom lately that I can't verify in RRAA records so why are you bringing mud to this table especially when the target is not here to defend himself and especially if your charges are scurrilous and without depth Art Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
I have a great deal of respect for Tom, W8JI. In fact, there are few
people I respect as much. I regard him as being exceptionally honest, very analytical, and always seeking to find the truth and increase his knowledge. Whenever his view of how things work have been shown to be wrong, I've found him to readily accept the corrected view, and be grateful of the opportunity to learn something new. I've also learned from him on more than one occasion. One notable case is the idea of using a balun at the input of a tuner to improve the balun's balancing properties. I had believed it to work, but he showed me where I was wrong, giving me the opportunity to increase my knowledge. I find it contemptable and cowardly to attack him -- or anyone -- in a forum where he's not a participant and isn't present to correct misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and otherwise respond and defend himself. People doing so should instead sign onto one of the election campaigns or go on AM talk radio, where such gutless, dishonest, and mean-spirited activity is the accepted norm. I believe the Russians have a word for this kind of cowardly and "uncultured" activity -- something like "nyekulturny". Maybe Yuri knows. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
|
Richard Harrison wrote:
Did Tom ever admit that it`s possible that current into one end of the coil does not necessarily equal the current at its other end? His own measurements proved that the currents at each end of air-core loading coils are NOT equal. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Do you have a quote showing exactly what Tom said, in context? Here's one from his web page: "What determines current distribution in a loading coil? The capacitance to the outside world and the impedance above the loading coil. The current in any inductor would be equal at each end except for displacement currents, which are "imaginary currents" that flow through capacitance." He completely ignores the fact that, for a standing-wave antenna, the net current is the superposed phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current and whatever phase shift occurs through the coil is doubled because those two currents are traveling in opposite directions. He is thinking lumped circuit model when he should be using a distributed network model. What he says is reasonably accurate for a traveling-wave antenna but certainly not for a standing-wave antenna. EZNEC clearly illustrates the difference in the currents when the coil is modeled as a coil of wire segments and not as a lumped inductor. Anyone who would like a copy of the EZNEC file need only request it. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
One notable case is the idea of using a balun at the input of a tuner to improve the balun's balancing properties. I had believed it to work, but he showed me where I was wrong, giving me the opportunity to increase my knowledge. Over on eHam.net, he just admitted that a real world application does not act like that perfect paper solution. He said: "In real life, stray capacitances from the network to ground modify the behavior of the system when the balun is moved ..." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote: Do you have a quote showing exactly what Tom said, in context? Here's one from his web page: "What determines current distribution in a loading coil? The capacitance to the outside world and the impedance above the loading coil. The current in any inductor would be equal at each end except for displacement currents, which are "imaginary currents" that flow through capacitance." He completely ignores the fact that, for a standing-wave antenna, the net current is the superposed phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current and whatever phase shift occurs through the coil is doubled because those two currents are traveling in opposite directions. He is thinking lumped circuit model when he should be using a distributed network model. What he says is reasonably accurate for a traveling-wave antenna but certainly not for a standing-wave antenna. EZNEC clearly illustrates the difference in the currents when the coil is modeled as a coil of wire segments and not as a lumped inductor. Anyone who would like a copy of the EZNEC file need only request it. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- Current waves can travel in two directions at the same time. Charge can't. For a guy who doesn't seem to be able to make the distinction, you don't have any business criticizing Tom Rauch's understanding of the situation. 73, Tom Donaly KA6RUH |
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:54:10 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote: Now, I know that such antennas are not designed to be transmit antennas (and again, perhaps too short to boot); so I will leave that to others to engage as a receive antenna if they doubt reciprocity (or I will do that later this eve for them as I often have to). Hi All, I've repeated the models with longer runs: 1000 meters length @ 80M. For transmits, the single wire over ground shows a gain of 0.42dBi at 10° but with a F/B of 16.4dB. EZNEC proclaims the model exhibits 17dB loss. For transmits, the double wire over ground shows a gain of 1.2dBi at 10° but with a F/B of 11.7dB. EZNEC proclaims the model exhibits 17dB loss. However, Beverages are not typically the first choice for transmission, but rather reception. Does reciprocity hold? As no one has offered to help the Little Red Hen, would they care to share in the cake? For the receive single wire Beverage @ 10° w/600 Ohm load Total load power = 5.543E-07 watts For the receive double wire Beverage @ 10° w/600 Ohm load Total load power = 6.623E-07 watts Now, if we compare the two receive loads we find they differ by .77dB which is the same difference for the transmission models. By most accounts, that means reciprocity prevails. By further accounts, that means the double wire system is superior - if you want to lay out 1000 meters of wire for less than one dB (that pesky one dB value judgment again). By this point, what with all the trolling going on and so little actual technical content, What was this all about? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark" asked - Does reciprocity hold? ------------------------------------------- How dare you question it? ---- Punchinello. |
W7EL wrote:
I have a great deal of respect for Tom, W8JI. In fact, there are few people I respect as much. I regard him as being exceptionally honest, very analytical, and always seeking to find the truth and increase his knowledge. Whenever his view of how things work have been shown to be wrong, I've found him to readily accept the corrected view, and be grateful of the opportunity to learn something new. I've also learned from him on more than one occasion. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion. I am sure Tom has also respect for you (as I do) and he would think twice of pontificating at you than at someone who is not so vocal or "famous" due to their status or postings on Internet. My experience is, as I mentioned it before ( I don't take crap for anybody) that when I brought some correction to his fallacy or presented idea that did not exactly jive with his "knowledge", he would in first posting come on the high horse and pontificate and ridicule the person, rather than engage in the discussion of pro or con and try to sort things out. That's what ****es me off, when someone who is wrong resorts to personal attacks (like democrats) rather than engaging in substantive discussion. He thrives on reflectors where he is protected by the administrators that worship him and will not allow discussions when he is on the losing side. He is not on Amp reflector, mainly because R. Measures debunked some of his postings proclaiming fallacies. Same was on TowerTalk with K7GCO, who called him "great technical imposter". Been there, was done to me. Again his modus operandi is, when he is wrong, he attacks person rather than engages in discussion and admitting wrong. Then goes quiet for few months and later corrected, emerges as a "guru" on the subject, like it is his own idea. Never admitting or giving credit where is due. I had about 6 situations like that with him, records are at the web sites, anyone can look it up. I don't give a hoot about "reputation" among the hams, I have a life outside of ham "world". It just burns me when I try with good intentions to bring correction to some crap that is floating around, and for it I get personally attacked and ridiculed. I don't give a hoot who people want to worship, I have my God. I try to point out some errors or problems, be it wrong information or crapy equipment. If you want to find out who is gutless, dishonest and nyekulturny, go back to some archives, I can supply you subjects and see for yourself. I learned thing or two from Tom too, but I also see lot of textbook stuff on his pages and even there are some misleading information. But I will not take crap for saying that 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong. I find it contemptable and cowardly to attack him -- or anyone -- in a forum where he's not a participant and isn't present to correct misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and otherwise respond and defend himself. The last thing is sentence about wire "losing" conductivity by laying on the ground. That's what I brought up. I know what was the situation with dual wire Beverages, but that sentence was wrong way to describe what is happening in the system. If he is so smart, he should be more careful when describing technical matters. Words mean things. BTW Tom used EZnec to "prove" that current across the loading coil in the loaded antenna is the same at both ends. When you replace that coil with same inductance value loading stub, you find that current is (significantly) different at the ends of the stub. Have you corrected him how to use EZnec properly to model lumped inductance and get results that jive with reality? Cecil showed and explained the stuff. In his presentation at Dayton, Tom still propagated that nonsense. Anyway, back to DR1, getting tired of arguing with "experts". 73 Yuri, K3BU |
Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"If anybody cares to discuss the subject, or explain how the conductor laid on the ground can lose its conductivity, bring it on." "Lose its conductivity" is likely a mischaracterization. Conductivity of a wire at a particular temperature and frequency is a function of the form, size, and material the wire is made of. Proximity of the earth should not affect conductivity directly. Loss from an R-F carrying conductor can come from energy coupled into the surroundings. Obvious source is the R-F in the conductor. Closer the conductor comes to the earth, the higher its capacitive coupling, and the more current flows in the lossy earth, especially in the case of an unbalanced conductor. The fact that a conductor laid on the ground can lose R-F does not mean it lost conductivity. It means the conductor has induced loss in the ground upon which it is laid. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Tom Donaly wrote:
Current waves can travel in two directions at the same time. Charge can't. Quoting Kraus: "A coil can also act as a 180 degree phase shifter ..." Exactly how does a coil act as a 180 degree phase shifter if charge cannot travel in two directions? Seems that you also don't comprehend the nature of a distributed network such as a bugcatcher loading coil. For a guy who doesn't seem to be able to make the distinction, you don't have any business criticizing Tom Rauch's understanding of the situation. So you believe that charge density is constant throughout an RF distributed network? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
BTW Tom used EZnec to "prove" that current across the loading coil in the loaded antenna is the same at both ends. When you replace that coil with same inductance value loading stub, you find that current is (significantly) different at the ends of the stub. Have you corrected him how to use EZnec properly to model lumped inductance and get results that jive with reality? Cecil showed and explained the stuff. In his presentation at Dayton, Tom still propagated that nonsense. I'm going to add this to my web page. It's a mobile antenna with an 4' bottom section, a loading coil, and an 4' whip. The loading coil is made up of EZNEC segments with an octal shape. It is 4.5 turns in 0.9 foot length and one foot diameter. The feedpoint current is 1 amp. The current in the first segment at the bottom of the coil is 0.9956 amps. The current in the last segment at the top of the the coil is 0.5326 amps. The number of electrical degrees that the coil occupies is about 50 degrees, more than half of the 90 degree antenna. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:23:02 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: charge cannot travel in two directions? :-) |
"On a different note Yuri, what's new with the transceiver?? Dale W4OP |
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: charge cannot travel in two directions? :-) Charge travels in two directions 1/2WL apart in a transmission line. Why is that funny? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Original W8JI post:
"The only thing that prevents people from shooting themselves in the foot with the wire below the Beverage is the wire couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very lossy, and of course that means it doesn't help with stability or termination." Yuri, K3BU wrote: "If anybody cares to discuss the subject, or explain how the conductor laid on the ground can lose its conductivity, bring it on." "Lose its conductivity" is likely a mischaracterization. "Becomes very lossy" or paraphrased "lose its conductivity" to make the point? Conductivity of a wire at a particular temperature and frequency is a function of the form, size, and material the wire is made of. QSL. Proximity of the earth should not affect conductivity directly. QSL Loss from an R-F carrying conductor can come from energy coupled into the surroundings. Obvious source is the R-F in the conductor. Closer the conductor comes to the earth, the higher its capacitive coupling, and the more current flows in the lossy earth, especially in the case of an unbalanced conductor. I can see conductor (assuming insulated wire) having its electrical length affected by the capacitance between wire and earth, but wouldn't current stay close to same along the length? So, like if we have a coax, which has quite a capacitive coupling between the center conductor and shield, we would lose (significant) RF current at the other end? The fact that a conductor laid on the ground can lose R-F does not mean it lost conductivity. It means the conductor has induced loss in the ground upon which it is laid. (or improved conductivity?) Isn't it really case of two (resistive) conductors in parallel? Wire and dirt, with less resistance wire taking over? Why do we use radials if the conductors become lossy? Why does the Beverage laid on the ground work? I can see conductor as a (resonant) RF circuit becoming "detuned" and affected by earth proximity, but saying that it "becomes very lossy" is not very descriptive. With two wire Beverage I can see the interference between two "antennas" having same physical length, but different electrical lengths causing deterioration of pattern (which is observed). Cecil help? :-) Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Yuri, K3BU |
Cecil Moore wrote:
I'm going to add this to my web page. It's a mobile antenna with an 4' bottom section, a loading coil, and an 4' whip. The loading coil is made up of EZNEC segments with an octal shape. It is 4.5 turns in 0.9 foot length and one foot diameter. The feedpoint current is 1 amp. The current in the first segment at the bottom of the coil is 0.9956 amps. The current in the last segment at the top of the the coil is 0.5326 amps. The number of electrical degrees that the coil occupies is about 50 degrees, more than half of the 90 degree antenna. Darn, should have been: -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/octcoil.gif -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:01:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Why is that funny? There is no charge with a physical dimension of 1/2WL :-) |
|
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: Current waves can travel in two directions at the same time. Charge can't. Quoting Kraus: "A coil can also act as a 180 degree phase shifter ..." Exactly how does a coil act as a 180 degree phase shifter if charge cannot travel in two directions? Seems that you also don't comprehend the nature of a distributed network such as a bugcatcher loading coil. For a guy who doesn't seem to be able to make the distinction, you don't have any business criticizing Tom Rauch's understanding of the situation. So you believe that charge density is constant throughout an RF distributed network? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- A charge defined at one point can go one direction or another, Cecil, as in current, but not two opposing directions at once. And quit telling me what I believe; I'll tell you. Let me say in terms you might get this time: The same infinitesimal charge dQ cannot move in two directions at the same time. In order to do that it would have to split in two and that would violate the principle of conservation of charge. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Richard Clark wrote:
. . . However, Beverages are not typically the first choice for transmission, but rather reception. Does reciprocity hold? As no one has offered to help the Little Red Hen, would they care to share in the cake? For the receive single wire Beverage @ 10° w/600 Ohm load Total load power = 5.543E-07 watts For the receive double wire Beverage @ 10° w/600 Ohm load Total load power = 6.623E-07 watts Now, if we compare the two receive loads we find they differ by .77dB which is the same difference for the transmission models. By most accounts, that means reciprocity prevails. By further accounts, that means the double wire system is superior - if you want to lay out 1000 meters of wire for less than one dB (that pesky one dB value judgment again). . . . You wouldn't modify a Beverage or any HF receiving antenna to get more gain. The whole object is directivity. If you need more gain, turn up the receiver gain control. Of course reciprocity prevails. But at HF, the important criteria are different for transmitting and receiving. When transmitting, it's gain; when receiving, it's directivity. The Beverage is poor in the first category but good in the second -- it's a good receiving antenna but a poor transmitting antenna. Incidentally, Tom W8JI and I worked out a way some time ago to get directivity information from EZNEC. You can see an example at http://www.w8ji.com/receiving_basics.htm in the discussion about Beverages. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:16:14 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: . . . However, Beverages are not typically the first choice for transmission, but rather reception. Does reciprocity hold? As no one has offered to help the Little Red Hen, would they care to share in the cake? For the receive single wire Beverage @ 10° w/600 Ohm load Total load power = 5.543E-07 watts For the receive double wire Beverage @ 10° w/600 Ohm load Total load power = 6.623E-07 watts Now, if we compare the two receive loads we find they differ by .77dB which is the same difference for the transmission models. By most accounts, that means reciprocity prevails. By further accounts, that means the double wire system is superior - if you want to lay out 1000 meters of wire for less than one dB (that pesky one dB value judgment again). . . . You wouldn't modify a Beverage or any HF receiving antenna to get more gain. The whole object is directivity. If you need more gain, turn up the receiver gain control. If you will note above, there is nothing stated in terms of gain. Of course reciprocity prevails. But at HF, the important criteria are different for transmitting and receiving. When transmitting, it's gain; If you will note in the original posting (the content that has been edited out here) I do employ the term gain - however only as an informal comparison. when receiving, it's directivity. The Beverage is poor in the first category but good in the second -- it's a good receiving antenna but a poor transmitting antenna. That has been attended to several times. Incidentally, Tom W8JI and I worked out a way some time ago to get directivity information from EZNEC. You can see an example at http://www.w8ji.com/receiving_basics.htm in the discussion about Beverages. Hi Roy, That's nice. Do you have anything that resolves Yuri's "problem?" More to the matter, does anyone know what that "problem" is? If it is merely semantics (as the discussion seems to have evolved into), then perhaps this matter is more suitable to rec.radio.amateur.linguistics. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Hi Yuri, As this is not demonstrated (significantly) through EZNEC in my models, perhaps you can provide your model that does? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC I do not have EZNEC model, but you can read up the thread at http://lists.contesting.com/archives...-08/index.html and look for 2 wire beverages tec. Someone tested single wire Beverage and then laid "return" wire underneath on the ground and noticed deterioration of F/B and higher angle lobes. Yuri |
Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Roy, That's nice. Do you have anything that resolves Yuri's "problem?" More to the matter, does anyone know what that "problem" is? If it is merely semantics (as the discussion seems to have evolved into), then perhaps this matter is more suitable to rec.radio.amateur.linguistics. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC I've already said all I have to say about Yuri's problems. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"I can see conductor (assuming insulated wire) having its electrical length affected by the capacitance between wire and earth, but wouldn`t current stay close to same along the length?" Depends on distance from the source. Current fades fast close to the source, but at a great distance, the decline is very slow. Traveling waves don`t require a complete electrical circuit for propagation. They travel well in a complete void. So, the volts and amps far from the wave source don`t need to equal those at the source. V=frequency times wavelength always prevails. So, capacitance between wire and earth for a given frequency changes the wavelength because the velocity of the wave is changed (slowed) by proximity of the earth. As a traveling wave is free to be attenuated in travel, current must decline enroute. Brown, Lewis, & Epstein, the 20th Century RCA geniuses, declared that the place to end extending ground radials is where their current becomes insignificant. Yuri also wrote: "Why do we use radials if the conductors become lossy?" Yuri also had answered the question before asking. Didn`t Johnny Carson patent that routine, holding the question envelope to his head while he gave the answer? Yuti`s answer: "Wire and dirt, with less resistance wire taking over." Yuri also wrote: "Why does the Beverage laid on the ground work?" Kraus says a wave traveling along a perfect conductor produces an electric field perpendicular to the conducting surface, but along the earth the electric field has a forward tilt. The horizontal component of the vertical wave produced by the tilt is associated with that part of the wave that enters the surface and is dissipated as heat. The vertical component of the wave continues to travel along the surface. The emfs induced along the antenna by the horizontal component made of the tilt, all add up in the same phase at the receiver. Maximum response is in the direction of the horizontal wire. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Yuri said he would send me a check for the issues I didn't get and he
was true to his word. The check came in the mail today. Thank you Yuri. 73 Henry WA0GOZ Yuri Blanarovich wrote: Can you describe what is on the label, with codes if any please? Thanks, Yuri Sure WA0GOZ S You are right, I found it on the computer.Printed listings missed it, because I received your check on 89/06/06 after the regular 8905 issue was mailed, your payment arrived later, I sent you 8905 issue and it didn't show up on the printout. Searching computer I found it. I have mailed check with refund today. I am sorry for mixup, comments and above all, that I was not able to continue publishing and sinking money into Radiosporting. I am still hoping to scan old issues and perhaps continue with it on Internet (no money outlay for printing), but only as time permitting. I am glad we could sort thing out. 73 Yuri |
Hi Yuri,
This is like offering an encyclopedia and saying an article about some famous guy is in there. Never mind. The data speaks for itself - less than a dB difference. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Not really, it is more like saying there is a word or discussion about 2 wire beverages on page so and so (last few days). Discussion was quite sizable and worth looking into for those who only play with "soft" antennas and see what experiences were gained by those who played with real antennas. It was midnight here and I was closing the shop for the day in anticipation of getting up early. I had no time to go and do the digest or get into arguments of what IS is. Your data speaks of less than one dB, reality is bit different. But I know, its me (problem), not the software. Maybe a little less sarcasm would go longer way? 73 Yuri |
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Why is that funny? There is no charge with a physical dimension of 1/2WL :-) The charge on a transmission line occupies the entire transmission line. For instance, there's absolutely nothing prohibiting us from saying, "Two of the batteries are holding a charge." It doesn't mean they are holding the same charge or the same charge particles. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Richard Harrison wrote:
Yuri, K3BU wrote: "I can see conductor (assuming insulated wire) having its electrical length affected by the capacitance between wire and earth, but wouldn`t current stay close to same along the length?" Depends on distance from the source. Current fades fast close to the source, but at a great distance, the decline is very slow. Maybe one could coil the wire into a big helical coil where the current-in is equal to the current-out. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
wrote:
Yuri said he would send me a check for the issues I didn't get and he was true to his word. The check came in the mail today. Hey Yuri, I didn't get any issues either. Send me a check. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:40:01 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: The charge on a transmission line occupies the entire transmission line. Next you will be saying it is a Visa Charge. Or is it Master Card for transmission lines? :-) |
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: The charge on a transmission line occupies the entire transmission line. Next you will be saying it is a Visa Charge. Or is it Master Card for transmission lines? :-) Have you never seen a calculation for the total electrical charge for the entire planet earth? Charge is a concept, not a particle. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:07:10 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: for the entire planet earth? Did you get the visa statement? Or is earth Diner's Club? :-) |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
"Becomes very lossy" or paraphrased "lose its conductivity" to make the point? I agree that a wire laid on the ground does not become very lossy although energy is lost to the lossy medium in proximity to the wire. What is happening is decreasing ExH power caused by field attenuation in the ground. In free space, the E-field causes an equal energy H-field which causes an equal energy E-field, ad infinitum. In the presence of a lossy medium, like earth, the fields undergo an attenuation factor so that each field strength is less than the previous cycle. The decrease of the voltage and the current on/in the wire on the ground is *caused* by the attenuation of the surrounding fields and would occur even if the wire were a super-conductor. The wire itself does not "become very lossy". The ground around the wire becomes very lossy. Consider the power transferred through a transformer. The primary has highly conductive insulated wire but "loses" virtually all of its power, not through conduction, but through induction, to the secondary. The losses through an insulated wire laid on the ground are through induction, not conduction. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Yuri Blanarovich wrote: "Becomes very lossy" or paraphrased "lose its conductivity" to make the point? I agree that a wire laid on the ground does not become very lossy although energy is lost to the lossy medium in proximity to the wire. When I worked for the Schlumberger Oil Well Surveying Corp., I used to run an "induction log" on freshly drilled wells before the casing was set while the hole was filled with "mud". In basic terms, it worked like a transformer. The primary would create an inductive field in a donut shape out in the formation. That inductive field would generate a voltage in the secondary of the transformer. A little processing of the received signal yielded the conductivity of the formation, high for shale and salt water, low for fresh water and oil, lower for gas - same principle as metal detectors. We also had a cheaper "electrical log" which was simply two conductive electrodes at each end of a wire-line sonde between which conduction current was measured. Not nearly as accurate as the induction log because it was highly affected by the fresh water used to make the mud. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Tom Donaly wrote:
A charge defined at one point can go one direction or another, Cecil, as in current, but not two opposing directions at once. And quit telling me what I believe; I'll tell you. Let me say in terms you might get this time: The same infinitesimal charge dQ cannot move in two directions at the same time. In order to do that it would have to split in two and that would violate the principle of conservation of charge. Get real, Tom. Does your vehicle battery hold a charge? Is that charge an infinitesimal point charge? Introducing an infinitesimal charge into the argument at this late point is known in logic as diverting the issue. The charge on your battery is a total charge. The charge in a transmission line is a total charge. The charge of the planet earth is a total charge. Charge is moving in opposite directions 1/2WL apart in a transmission line. Charge is NOT limited to an infinitesimal charged particle, as you imply. Charge is a characteristic of *any* number of particles in *any* magnitude of volume including, presumably, the entire universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: A charge defined at one point can go one direction or another, Cecil, as in current, but not two opposing directions at once. And quit telling me what I believe; I'll tell you. Let me say in terms you might get this time: The same infinitesimal charge dQ cannot move in two directions at the same time. In order to do that it would have to split in two and that would violate the principle of conservation of charge. Get real, Tom. Does your vehicle battery hold a charge? Is that charge an infinitesimal point charge? Introducing an infinitesimal charge into the argument at this late point is known in logic as diverting the issue. The charge on your battery is a total charge. The charge in a transmission line is a total charge. The charge of the planet earth is a total charge. Charge is moving in opposite directions 1/2WL apart in a transmission line. Charge is NOT limited to an infinitesimal charged particle, as you imply. Charge is a characteristic of *any* number of particles in *any* magnitude of volume including, presumably, the entire universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- Go back to bed, Cecil. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com