|
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
And here you've made that big leap again. Where did "power" come from? Nothing in what you or I have said above explains how come the meter can read "Watts". It is calibrated in watts assuming that: Vfor^2/50 = Ifor^2*50 = Vfor*Ifor = forward power Vref^2/50 = Iref^2*50 = Vref*Iref = reflected power. This is in accordance with the laws of physics embodied in the wave reflection model. '50' in the above equations is critical. In any other environment besides 50 ohms, the assumptions are not valid and the calibration will be in error. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:25:32 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote: When there has been a reflection, the samples have opposite polarity and cancel. When there has been no reflection the samples from that direction of travel are in-phase and the sample total is double the contribution of either sample. Er, yes, pretty much... Hi Ian, To this point there is no controversy, no dispute. Why you should hedge your assent remains elliptical and probably lies with what you have to say following. That's because it doesn't actually measure watts. It has been calibrated in watts under certain specific test conditions, using a different kind of wattmeter that actually does measure watts. All power displays derive from some operations of an implied mathematical operation and all power displays employ scaling. They may, each, perform their job through different methods, but all such methods are still abstractions that require transformation to a common expression of power. There is nothing distinctive between these methods (the only separable characteristic) that negates the others results. You are going to have to be more explicit about why the Bird's expression of Power does not yield that characteristic. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote: On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:25:32 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK wrote: When there has been a reflection, the samples have opposite polarity and cancel. When there has been no reflection the samples from that direction of travel are in-phase and the sample total is double the contribution of either sample. Er, yes, pretty much... Hi Ian, To this point there is no controversy, no dispute. Why you should hedge your assent remains elliptical and probably lies with what you have to say following. That's because it doesn't actually measure watts. It has been calibrated in watts under certain specific test conditions, using a different kind of wattmeter that actually does measure watts. All power displays derive from some operations of an implied mathematical operation and all power displays employ scaling. They may, each, perform their job through different methods, but all such methods are still abstractions that require transformation to a common expression of power. There is nothing distinctive between these methods (the only separable characteristic) that negates the others results. You are going to have to be more explicit about why the Bird's expression of Power does not yield that characteristic. I think the problem is not with the meter. The meter simply tells us, based on several assumptions, how much power might be available to a 50 ohm load if the load were positioned appropriately at the meter location. And, by making some additional correct assumptions, we can accurately infer some things about the absorbtion of power at a remote terminus from the measurements. In my opinion, the only problem is in drawing incorrect inferences about the behavior of nature based on readings taken from the meter, and from some of the less than fortunate terminology which is associated with the meter readings. ac6xg |
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:32:36 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote: the only problem is in drawing incorrect inferences about the behavior of nature based on readings taken from the meter, and from some of the less than fortunate terminology which is associated with the meter readings. Hi Jim, This is the legacy left to all measurements being used. None has any absolute authority, nor is any measurement a truth in isolation. Further, without a statement of accuracy or context, no measurement is even valid of anything in particular. Behavior is demonstrable, or exhibited. It is measured by perception, or by fine grain tools such as meters (which are pathetic in comparison to the eye, ear, or sense of touch for range AND sensitivity). Behavior that is not demonstrable is the enigma of ethics. Would you steal if no one is watching? I am fully aware of the sub-text of trying to divorce the Bird Wattmeter from the discussion of waves. However to say it does not measure power necessarily pollutes all instrumentation with the same bias of argument. Hence this logic must eventually devolve to no instrument measures power - or waves - or what have you. Rather pointless in the end. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote: And here you've made that big leap again. Where did "power" come from? Nothing in what you or I have said above explains how come the meter can read "Watts". It is calibrated in watts assuming that: Thank you, Cecil: those key words "calibrated" and "assuming" are exactly what I wanted to bring out. Vfor^2/50 = Ifor^2*50 = Vfor*Ifor = forward power Vref^2/50 = Iref^2*50 = Vref*Iref = reflected power. This is in accordance with the laws of physics embodied in the wave reflection model. '50' in the above equations is critical. In any other environment besides 50 ohms, the assumptions are not valid and the calibration will be in error. So the printing on the Bird scale depends on a calibration using a different kind of wattmeter - one that measures real RF power delivered into a 50 ohm load. But beyond that, the calibration for a mismatched load depends on a large additional helping of theory. Those are the reasons for the point I'm always wanting to make about the Bird: it cannot be called in evidence to "prove" anything about forward and reflected power, because it is entirely dependent on the theories under debate. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:25:32 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK wrote: When there has been a reflection, the samples have opposite polarity and cancel. When there has been no reflection the samples from that direction of travel are in-phase and the sample total is double the contribution of either sample. Er, yes, pretty much... Hi Ian, To this point there is no controversy, no dispute. Why you should hedge your assent remains elliptical I was giving Richard H the chance to notice that wasn't quite correct, that's all. and probably lies with what you have to say following. That's because it doesn't actually measure watts. It has been calibrated in watts under certain specific test conditions, using a different kind of wattmeter that actually does measure watts. All power displays derive from some operations of an implied mathematical operation and all power displays employ scaling. They may, each, perform their job through different methods, but all such methods are still abstractions that require transformation to a common expression of power. There is nothing distinctive between these methods (the only separable characteristic) that negates the others results. You are going to have to be more explicit about why the Bird's expression of Power does not yield that characteristic. Simply because the theory that converts the Bird's raw readings (actually rectified RF voltage) into "Watts" on the printed scale is the very topic that is under discussion. That means the Bird's readings of "watts" cannot be called as evidence in the debate. Any argument based on doing so is doomed to be circular. It *may* still be correct, but that cannot be proved through a circular argument - you have to find some other way. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Jim Kelley wrote:
In my opinion, the only problem is in drawing incorrect inferences about the behavior of nature based on readings taken from the meter, and from some of the less than fortunate terminology which is associated with the meter readings. Spot-on, Jim. Oscar Wilde: "I wish I'd said that!" James McNeill Whistler: "You will, Oscar, you will..." -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Those are the reasons for the point I'm always wanting to make about the Bird: it cannot be called in evidence to "prove" anything about forward and reflected power, because it is entirely dependent on the theories under debate. But that makes you a little like the people who believe that man has never walked on the moon. No amount of proof is ever sufficient. And indeed, 1000 years from now, most of what we think we know now will be obsolete. So all we can do is operate within the laws of physics as we, the human race, understand them to exist at the present time. The debate is underway. Can photonic wave energy "slosh" around side-to-side at sub-light speeds? Can the laws of physics embodied in the wave reflection model and conservation of energy/momentum principles really be considered to be "gobblygook" after faithfully serving man during a century of scientific discovery? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:44:33 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote: That means the Bird's readings of "watts" cannot be called as evidence in the debate. Any argument based on doing so is doomed to be circular. It *may* still be correct, but that cannot be proved through a circular argument - you have to find some other way. Hi Ian, You have simply invalidated any method to prove the debate. In a sense, yours is an appeal that nothing can be known and hence nothing can be proven. Yes, I know this may be "inflammatory," but I would counter: give me one method of determining power that does not eventually appeal to circular definitions. This, of course, comes at the risk of starting yet another endless round - pun deliberate. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On 22 Jun 2005 12:02:38 -0700, "Cecil Moore"
wrote: Can photonic wave energy "slosh" around side-to-side at sub-light speeds? How many errors can you count here? where the number of words = n n! |
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: In my opinion, the only problem is in drawing incorrect inferences about the behavior of nature based on readings taken from the meter, and from some of the less than fortunate terminology which is associated with the meter readings. Spot-on, Jim. What is the technical content here? I don't see a single equation. The moral seems to be "draw no conclusions because they might be incorrect". Whatever happened to the scientific method where a premise is tested against reality? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Ian White, GM3SEK wrote:
"That`s because it doesn`t actually measure watts." Yes. As Ian said, it`s been calibrated in watts. Your spedometer doesn`t measure miles or hours. It has been calibrated in miles or km per hour. Nor, do you need to drive for miles or hours to get a readout. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote: Those are the reasons for the point I'm always wanting to make about the Bird: it cannot be called in evidence to "prove" anything about forward and reflected power, because it is entirely dependent on the theories under debate. But that makes you a little like the people who believe that man has never walked on the moon. No amount of proof is ever sufficient. No, it's not even remotely like that. So all we can do is operate within the laws of physics as we, the human race, understand them to exist at the present time. And the laws of scientific logic, for example: sticking to your initial assumptions; and being very careful to avoid circular arguments. The debate is underway. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: In my opinion, the only problem is in drawing incorrect inferences about the behavior of nature based on readings taken from the meter, and from some of the less than fortunate terminology which is associated with the meter readings. Spot-on, Jim. What is the technical content here? I don't see a single equation. The moral seems to be "draw no conclusions because they might be incorrect". Whatever happened to the scientific method where a premise is tested against reality? You lost it somewhere. The moral is "draw no conclusion that could be incorrect". -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:44:33 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK wrote: That means the Bird's readings of "watts" cannot be called as evidence in the debate. Any argument based on doing so is doomed to be circular. It *may* still be correct, but that cannot be proved through a circular argument - you have to find some other way. Hi Ian, You have simply invalidated any method to prove the debate. In a sense, yours is an appeal that nothing can be known and hence nothing can be proven. Utter rubbish. I am simply saying that you cannot prove something if you already assumed it as part of the "proof". you have to find some other way. That's all. Yes, I know this may be "inflammatory," but I would counter: give me one method of determining power that does not eventually appeal to circular definitions. Certainly. A thermal wattmeter determines the power delivered into a load resistor without making any assumptions about how and why it got there. It only involves measurements of mass, time and temperature rise, and a knowledge of specific heat capacity, so it is completely independent of any assumptions related to RF transmission line theory. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:59:00 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote: Certainly. A thermal wattmeter determines the power delivered into a load resistor without making any assumptions about how and why it got there. It only involves measurements of mass, time and temperature rise, and a knowledge of specific heat capacity, so it is completely independent of any assumptions related to RF transmission line theory. Hi Ian, So here I will follow your plunge into the rabbit hole. That thermal wattmeter, and I know a variety of them, each very different from the other, has a scale, just like the Bird. Every meter has scaling circuitry for that scale, just like the Bird. Accurate Thermal wattmeters use AC references and need to transform to DC to drive the scale, just like the Bird. Accurate Thermal wattmeters don't even directly measure mass, time, temperature rise, or specific heat capacity - they infer them by comparison. The measurement is balanced against a simpler substitute - one difference from the Bird that is of no consequence. Every step of the way, there is a conversion performed to meet the needs of displaying a result, just like the Bird. Further, the best and most accurate thermal wattmeter is as restricted as a Bird Wattmeter because it (they) too is (are) load specific. A 50 Ohm thermal wattmeter is no more correct on a 75 Ohm line than a Bird Wattmeter. Those same thermal wattmeters all quite deliberately employ the same printed restrictions of operation at a known load without reflections present. If you are trying to make an appeal to a calorimeter, with thermometer in hand, you are simply exacting the algorithms you must use, compared to the already quantified results that the Bird will offer by the similar math being embedded in the coupling and scaling of a tensioned needle indicator in a magnetic field. Current, field, mass, tension, deflection, time - still in the jumble, they evaluate to power. I've calibrated meter movements, balanced needles, replaced springs, adjusted trim pots, tuned capacitance, replaced resistors - and I have worked and calibrated calorimeters, bolometers, thermistors, thermocouples, barreters, Wollaston wires, diodes, thermopiles, black bodies.... But I've said all this before, and it cannot have escaped your attention. So just what is it about this list of thermal technology that is so decidedly uncircular that it trumps the Bird? There are any number of ways to measure power, none of them are exclusive, and certainly none can claim to achieve this feat through other than ordinary transformation of physical actions. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
You lost it somewhere. The moral is "draw no conclusion that could be incorrect". Every technical conclusion that you can possibly draw today will probably be proven incorrect during the next 1000 years. All we have today is the limit of human knowledge. Newton was wrong about light. Einstein was wrong about entanglement. Methinks you have to be a god not to draw incorrect conclusions. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: So all we can do is operate within the laws of physics as we, the human race, understand them to exist at the present time. And the laws of scientific logic, for example: sticking to your initial assumptions; and being very careful to avoid circular arguments. OK, let's take an example. The source (SGCL) is a signal generator with a circulator and 50 ohm resistor circulator load. The load is a 291.5 ohm resistor. 100W SGCL---Bird---50 ohm lossless coax---291.5 ohm load We measure 50 watts delivered to the 291.5 ohm load. We measure 50 watts dissipated in the 50 ohm circulator load resistor. The Bird reads 100 watts forward power and 50 watts reflected power. Modulation proves that the 50 watts absorbed in the circulator resistor has made a round trip to the 291.5 ohm load and back. Everything obeys the laws of physics embodied in the wave reflection model and the conservation of energy/momentum principles. What else is there to know? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
|
In article . com,
"Cecil Moore" wrote: uctance and capacitance in the transmission line and that there is really no forward EM wave energy or momentum traveling at the speed of light and no reflected EM wave energy or momentum traveling at the speed of light. what would be the 'momentum' your referring to? is their a knetic/stored piece i am misssing? or are you just referring to like the flywheel effect for ex a large coil might have |
ml wrote:
(Richard Harrison) wrote: There are no volts or amps in the wave, only the ability to generate volts and amps in conductors. if the waves have the ability to generate it, how can their be no volts or amps in the wave? what force has it how did it get seperated from the 'volts' I think maybe what Richard is trying to say is that the wave actually consists of an E-field and an H-field. The E-field results in volts and the H-field results in amps. The charged particles responsible for the voltage and current cannot move at the speed of light. Probably a more modern way of saying the same thing is that RF waves are photonic energy, moving at the speed of light. The photons are the fields and the fields are the photons. Electrons cannot move at the speed of light. Photons generated by excited electrons are what move at the speed of light. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
ml wrote:
what would be the 'momentum' your referring to? is their a knetic/stored piece i am misssing? or are you just referring to like the flywheel effect for ex a large coil might have In 1619, Kepler proposed that it was the pressure (momentum) of sunlight that blows back a comet's tail. Maxwell, in 1873 said: "In a medium in which waves are propagated, there is a pressure (momentum) in the direction normal to the waves ..." From "Optics", by Hecht: "One of the most significant properties of the electromagnetic wave is that it transports energy and momentum." ... "Indeed, whenever we have a flow of energy, it's reasonable to expect that there will be an associated momentum - the two are the related time and space aspects of motion." And, of course, energy and momentum are two things that must necessarily be conserved. The bottom line is that if there are any reflected waves that don't reach the source (and also are not dissipated), they must necessarily have had their direction of energy and momentum reversed back toward the load. Anything else would violate the laws of physics. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
The moral is "draw no conclusion that could be incorrect". Don't know about you, Ian, but I learn more when my conclusion is incorrect. I enjoy both, but I actually enjoy being proven wrong more than I enjoy being proven right. Unfortunately, sacred cows are presented on this newsgroup much more than technical information. Lord forgive my Texan nature, I dearly love to barbeque sacred cows. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
m wrote:
"If the waves have the ability to generate it, how can there be no volts or amps in the wave?' Good question. We know light, an EM phenomenon, travels to us over zillions of miles and years through a medium of sparce and scattered conduction when there is any. The answer is fields which need no conduction, yet still exert action at a distance. James Clerk-Maxwell speculated that the kind of current you have in a capacitor, displacement current, which does not require electron migration, was responsible for propagation in free space, no "aether" necessary. Maxwell was right. Two of Maxwell`s equations are called his field equations. The first equation says that a changing magnetic field produces an electric field. The second says that a changing electric field produces a magnetic field. That is the secret of electromagnetic radiation. For more details see "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. He explains dot products and contour integrals too. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Wanted to thank you both for having the patients to help with so many explanations over the past few months appreciate it the responces you provided on this thread is rather interesting , i understood some, but find myself not understanding 'all' and worse still, you raised further questions and a eyebrow.... now i must go once again to 'the books' something about this and keep forgetting the name , when a light is shined thru a splitter the 2 "" beams still have a relationship to each other then i think quantum things but even if i expertly understood all these parts, would I have the answers?? seems even w/o a through understanding these things are predictable, so why hasn't anyone built a radio that works on this ? seems it would go faster and further I dunno (referring to the particles that always are opposite once split)(if we could use force to flip one, and the other fliped regardless of distance, than 0/1 streams can be read no? hey people thought people like einstein were nutz too and he was smart m In article , Cecil Moore wrote: ml wrote: what would be the 'momentum' your referring to? is their a knetic/stored piece i am misssing? or are you just referring to like the flywheel effect for ex a large coil might have In 1619, Kepler proposed that it was the pressure (momentum) of sunlight that blows back a comet's tail. Maxwell, in 1873 said: "In a medium in which waves are propagated, there is a pressure (momentum) in the direction normal to the waves ..." From "Optics", by Hecht: "One of the most significant properties of the electromagnetic wave is that it transports energy and momentum." ... "Indeed, whenever we have a flow of energy, it's reasonable to expect that there will be an associated momentum - the two are the related time and space aspects of motion." And, of course, energy and momentum are two things that must necessarily be conserved. The bottom line is that if there are any reflected waves that don't reach the source (and also are not dissipated), they must necessarily have had their direction of energy and momentum reversed back toward the load. Anything else would violate the laws of physics. |
ml wrote:
then i think quantum things but even if i expertly understood all these parts, would I have the answers?? (Quote from Max Planck) "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:14:24 GMT, ml wrote:
hey people thought people like einstein were nutz too and he was smart A fellow develops a flat tire and pulls to the side of the road, next to the local insane asylum. As he is removing the flat, and having put the nuts into the hub-cap, he notices an inmate staring at him through the bars of his windowed room. As he remounts the spare, he spills the hub-cap's contents into the storm drain. He begins to swear and pull his hair out - what's he gonna do? From the window: "Remove one nut from each of the other wheels" Stunned, the driver takes the advice and asks, "What are you doing in there?" "I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid." 73's Richard Clark KB7QHC |
ml wrote:
then i think quantum things but even if i expertly understood all these parts, would I have the answers?? You don't need to "think quantum things" about this problem. The discovery of quantum physics was that energy levels aren't continuous. A "system" (whatever it may be) can only have certain levels of energy - in-between energy levels are not allowed. To change between energy level, the system must emit or absorb quanta of energy. Quantum energy E is related to frequency (f, Hz) by E = h*f, where h is Planck's constant = 6.6 x 10^-34 Joule seconds. At 10MHz, the quantum energy is 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0066 joules. This is so small that - for all practical purposes - ANY energy level is possible, and quantum effects at radio frequencies are so small they are irrelevant. So quantum physics has just *confirmed* that, at radio frequencies, classical EM physics is all you need to know. hey people thought people like einstein were nutz too and he was smart The question is: are there any Einsteins here? Antennas and transmission lines are home territory for classical EM physics, right in the middle of our map of existing knowledge. There are still lots of interesting new things to be discovered there; but we know in advance that they MUST join up with the existing map, because it surrounds us on every side. Anybody who imagines he's an Einstein, exploring the outer boundaries... is just plain lost. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
thanks for responding Ian: No doubt your correct about alot, and clasically speaking i wouldn't argue, however 2 points firstly my comparsion to einstein wasn't regarding myself i was making a joke that my 'theories /ideas' are often thought of as crazy but who knows regarding your being so firm saying that rf is typically just conventional physics, I dunno.. who says it's confirmed to our space?? we are only just begining to see the possibilities that things in our deminsion/ or time "e space" do in fact have relationships with 'other ' things, some of which might be having effects out of phase, 'time' or having somthing corresponding in another dimension so to speak (for example) it's not unfathomable to think that the sum of our current knowledge might no be infinate, perhaps we've simply failed to measure ? who knows what tomorrows proved new theories will bring? already here waves(rf) conventional were compared to photonic 'energy'(now thats something few can understand alone) and those photos do some really strange things w/regards to the above (even more strange) conventionally speaking your correct of course, but i always keep an open mind towards possibilities, and crazy theories, since rf is still such a not understood umm blackhole or i am just crazy yeah i am just a nutty non scientific type throwing wackey ideas i have into that round black hole hoping that i'll find the right sized peg(my best asylm analogy rich) not cause i want to be known, but it's just fun for me to ponder these things i've already learned alot from you ian thanks again rich and cecil thanks too m In article , Ian White GM3SEK wrote: ml wrote: then i think quantum things but even if i expertly understood all these parts, would I have the answers?? You don't need to "think quantum things" about this problem. The discovery of quantum physics was that energy levels aren't continuous. A "system" (whatever it may be) can only have certain levels of energy - in-between energy levels are not allowed. To change between energy level, the system must emit or absorb quanta of energy. Quantum energy E is related to frequency (f, Hz) by E = h*f, where h is Planck's constant = 6.6 x 10^-34 Joule seconds. At 10MHz, the quantum energy is 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0066 joules. This is so small that - for all practical purposes - ANY energy level is possible, and quantum effects at radio frequencies are so small they are irrelevant. So quantum physics has just *confirmed* that, at radio frequencies, classical EM physics is all you need to know. hey people thought people like einstein were nutz too and he was smart The question is: are there any Einsteins here? Antennas and transmission lines are home territory for classical EM physics, right in the middle of our map of existing knowledge. There are still lots of interesting new things to be discovered there; but we know in advance that they MUST join up with the existing map, because it surrounds us on every side. Anybody who imagines he's an Einstein, exploring the outer boundaries... is just plain lost. |
ml wrote:
already here waves(rf) conventional were compared to photonic 'energy' One conceptual mistake that a lot of people make concerns the roll of free electrons in a transmission line. It is the fields/photons that move at the speed of light, not the electrons. EM energy stored in excited free electrons is unstable and fleeting. The electron always gives up that extra energy very quickly in the form of photons which must necessarily travel at the speed of light and are incapable of some Old Wives' Tale "sloshing" response. Just because the electrons are capable of "sloshing" around doesn't mean that the EM energy can slosh around. The EM wave energy is not confined to the electrons, it exists ultimately in the fields/photons in the form of ExH wave energy/time moving at the speed of light. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:02:04 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: One conceptual mistake that a lot of people make concerns the roll of free electrons in a transmission line. Concepts indeed. Rolling free electrons. How did Planck miss this one? I can visualize marbles cascading down a quantum stairwell though. ;-) |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:10:51 GMT, ml wrote:
regarding your being so firm saying that rf is typically just conventional physics, I dunno.. who says it's confirmed to our space?? Hi Myles, He showed it to a precision of 34 places. Do you need more? we are only just begining to see the possibilities that things in our deminsion/ or time "e space" do in fact have relationships with 'other ' things, some of which might be having effects out of phase, 'time' or having somthing corresponding in another dimension so to speak (for example) If by we, you mean astronomers, and if by things, you mean galaxies. This is where 34 places begins to add up to serious values, like a boost of 1 MPH acceleration averaged over 100 quadrillion stars. Hold the key down on your amplified transmitter for a century, and your antenna might create as much thrust pressure that a snail expends in a femtosecond. If quantum effects were significant, then the weight of one more microbe from a nearby sneeze would immediately crush you as much as the added burden of Atlas. it's not unfathomable to think that the sum of our current knowledge might no be infinate, perhaps we've simply failed to measure ? who knows what tomorrows proved new theories will bring? Who knew that Flying machines would move millions of people? Certainly not Plato, but knowing it then wouldn't upgrade his seat to first class now. already here waves(rf) conventional were compared to photonic 'energy'(now thats something few can understand alone) and those photos do some really strange things w/regards to the above (even more strange) Strange? Only the way Cecil describes it. You may have as well studied drug abstinence from Elvis. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:02:04 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: One conceptual mistake that a lot of people make concerns the roll of free electrons in a transmission line. Concepts indeed. Rolling free electrons. How did Planck miss this one? I can visualize marbles cascading down a quantum stairwell though. ;-) Once again, the Netscape spellchecker fails to catch the typo. I have an inherited palsy as did my father and as does my sister. My sister has had electrodes implanted in her brain to try to control it but she, like I, still has a lot of trouble typing. It takes me five times as long to compose an acceptable posting as the average person because of all the double and triple entries. I sincerely appologize that my physical handicap has exposed your psychological tendency to make fun of the misfortunes of others. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:21:19 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: I sincerely appologize that my physical handicap has exposed your psychological tendency to make fun of the misfortunes of others. No, yours is not an appology - as you well know. Your hand at irony is firmly intact as all may notice in this cheap play with the sympathy card. |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:21:19 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: I sincerely appologize that my physical handicap has exposed your psychological tendency to make fun of the misfortunes of others. No, yours is not an appology - as you well know. Your hand at irony is firmly intact as all may notice in this cheap play with the sympathy card. Care to see a picture of my sister's shaved head after surgery? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Look at the title of this thread. Why slosh?
Transmission lines are used to convey energy, and at high frequencies they serve as resonant circuits, measuring devices, and impedance matching sections. Viltage and current at any point on a transmission line is expressed as the sum of the voltages and currents of two waves, one traveking forward toward the load (the incident wave) and one reflected from the load (the reflected or reverse wave). The reflected wave consists of energy from the wave traveling toward the load which is rejected by the load becausse the voltage to current ratio does not fit the only voltage to current ratio the load can accept, its impedance, perhaps a complex value. All energy in the wave traveling toward the load and all energy traveling away from the load (the opposite travel direction) must conform to the absolute value of the line`s characteristic impedance (Zo). Phase of the reflected current traveling back toward the generator is given a negative sign because the reflected wave is traveling in the reverse direction from the forward wave which travels toward the load. (See page 86 in the 1955 edition of Terman. Phase of the reflected current traveling toward the generator is everywhere proportional but out of phase with reflected voltage. The reflected voltage to current ratio is: -Zo. Actual voltage across the load is the sum of the incident and reflected voltages. Actual current through the load is the sum of the incident and reflected currents. The vector ratio of load voltage to load current must equal the load impedance which may be a complex value. The vector ratio of incident voltage to treflected voltage at the load is called the reflection coefficient of the load. It may be obtained from forward and reverse powers at the load. I have a special slide rule given me by the Bird wattmeter people to convert wattmeter forward and reverse indications into a reflection coefficient or an SWR. The transmission line and its load completely control the volts and amps everywhere in the system driven by a certain generator. There are no renegade volts and amps sloshing around. The idea is preposterous. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Richard Harrison wrote:
There are no renegade volts and amps sloshing around. The idea is preposterous. Thanks for all your statements of the laws of physics embodied in the wave reflection model. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Richard Clark wrote:
No, yours is not an appology - as you well know. Your hand at irony is firmly intact as all may notice in this cheap play with the sympathy card. The devil made me do it, Richard. I just couldn't resist a cheap shot at the resident cheap shot artist. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Bob, W9DMK wrote:
"The above paragraph was, however, a rather difficult diiffocult to understand ending---." Fair enough. Ohm`s law prevails at a-c as it does at d-c. That is, I = E / Z, just as I = E / R. If Z is a load impedance, it dictates the current it accepts. An impedance in series with the load affects the voltage applied to the load, but whatever voltage to the load is, the current through the load is related to the voltage adross the load by Ohm`s law. When a transmission line feeds a load, Ohm`s law prevails at the load Feed a certain current through and it produces a certain voltage drop. Feed a certain voltage and it allows a certain current. This is repetitious, but it`s true. The line only functions at Zo. The load only functions at its load impedance. The adjustment between these two intransigents are the forward and reverse voltages and currents whose sums make up the actual voltage and current at the load. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com