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 =----