Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Wescott wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: It has been said that the energy stored in the standing waves of a transmission line just "sloshes" around. We can demonstrate standing waves using a laser beam normal to a perfect mirror. There are points of maximum irradiance and points of minimum irradiance in the standing waves. So does the EM energy in the standing waves of light in free space "slosh" around like the energy in the standing waves in a transmission line? Yes -- there's energy actively bouncing around in that there beam; if you could reduce it down to one laser burst that was shorter than the distance between the laser and the mirror you'd (in theory at least) be able to see it. If so, where does the inductance and capacitance in free space come from to generate that 377 ohms of characteristic impedance? They don't. The behavior of EM radiation in free space is described by Maxwell's laws. The 377 ohms of characteristic impedance comes from the permittivity and permiability of free space but inductance and capacitance are only meaningful concepts if you have conductors in your model. If not, then why do the EM waves in a transmission line behave differently than the EM waves in free space? Because they're bounded by conductors. What different laws of physics do photonic waves in transmission lines obey than do photonic waves in free space? None. They obey Maxwell's laws. Of the E-field and H-fields rules for EM waves in free space, which of those rules are violated by EM waves in a transmission line? None. Is there one set of Maxwell's equations for free space and a separate set for transmission lines? No, just different boundary conditions to start. All this is covered in a good college E&M course. I wish I had an E&M book that I could recommend for self-study, but I don't. Mine is "Elements of Engineering Electromagnetics", but I took a course. I don't think I would have been able to just pick up the book and learn it from there. Did Maxwell ever mention the scientific concept of "sloshing"? Who knows? And was he talking about light waves or a wee dram of whiskey at the end of the day? As hard as it may be to believe for anyone who's gone through an E&M course the original form of Maxwell's equations were more difficult to comprehend than the way there're usually presented now -- the vector notation that is currently used either wasn't around then or wasn't in widespread use. ------------------------------------------- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Hi Tim, Cecil is just trying to crowd Roy into slapping leather (figuratively speaking). Cecil thinks he already knows the answer to all these questions, so there's no point in answering him. He'll be at it for awhile, until he realizes rhetorical confrontation won't work. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Did Maxwell ever mention the scientific concept of "sloshing"? No. The electron had not yet been discovered. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Did Maxwell ever mention the scientific concept of "sloshing"?
No. The electron had not yet been discovered. ======================================= Electrons sloshing about in conductors, in the same general direction, always attempt to avoid each other. This unsociable characteristic results in a pressure which drives them to flow near to the surface of conductors in which they are sloshing. Hence skin and proximity effects. There is an opposite effect. When electrons slosh about in opposite general directions they form a great liking for each other. The result is a mechanical attractive force between a pair of parallel conductors carrying current in opposite directions. Also another proximity effect. It's all so simple. Can't imagine why you have sloshing problems. But no doubt Cecil will introduce reflections, standing waves on meters which don't measure them, and SHF scattering parameters. ;o) ---- Reg, G4FGQ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Reg Edwards wrote:
But no doubt Cecil will introduce reflections, standing waves on meters which don't measure them, and SHF scattering parameters. ;o) How about I just introduce photons? EM waves are photonic energy whether they are traveling in free space or in a transmission line. How do the photons slosh around? The electrons that slosh around are the carriers of the EM wave and are not the EM wave. Who has published a scientific paper on photon sloshing? -- 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 =---- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Reg Edwards wrote:
But no doubt Cecil will introduce reflections, standing waves on meters which don't measure them, and SHF scattering parameters. ;o) How about I just introduce photons? EM waves are photonic energy whether they are traveling in free space or in a transmission line. How do the photons slosh around? The electrons that slosh around are the carriers of the EM wave and are not the EM wave. Who has published a scientific paper on photon sloshing? -- 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 =---- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Donaly wrote: Tim Wescott wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: It has been said that the energy stored in the standing waves of a transmission line just "sloshes" around. We can demonstrate standing waves using a laser beam normal to a perfect mirror. There are points of maximum irradiance and points of minimum irradiance in the standing waves. So does the EM energy in the standing waves of light in free space "slosh" around like the energy in the standing waves in a transmission line? Yes -- there's energy actively bouncing around in that there beam; if you could reduce it down to one laser burst that was shorter than the distance between the laser and the mirror you'd (in theory at least) be able to see it. If so, where does the inductance and capacitance in free space come from to generate that 377 ohms of characteristic impedance? They don't. The behavior of EM radiation in free space is described by Maxwell's laws. The 377 ohms of characteristic impedance comes from the permittivity and permiability of free space but inductance and capacitance are only meaningful concepts if you have conductors in your model. If not, then why do the EM waves in a transmission line behave differently than the EM waves in free space? Because they're bounded by conductors. What different laws of physics do photonic waves in transmission lines obey than do photonic waves in free space? None. They obey Maxwell's laws. Of the E-field and H-fields rules for EM waves in free space, which of those rules are violated by EM waves in a transmission line? None. Is there one set of Maxwell's equations for free space and a separate set for transmission lines? No, just different boundary conditions to start. All this is covered in a good college E&M course. I wish I had an E&M book that I could recommend for self-study, but I don't. Mine is "Elements of Engineering Electromagnetics", but I took a course. I don't think I would have been able to just pick up the book and learn it from there. Did Maxwell ever mention the scientific concept of "sloshing"? Who knows? And was he talking about light waves or a wee dram of whiskey at the end of the day? As hard as it may be to believe for anyone who's gone through an E&M course the original form of Maxwell's equations were more difficult to comprehend than the way there're usually presented now -- the vector notation that is currently used either wasn't around then or wasn't in widespread use. ------------------------------------------- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Hi Tim, Cecil is just trying to crowd Roy into slapping leather (figuratively speaking). Cecil thinks he already knows the answer to all these questions, so there's no point in answering him. Indeed. It appears things have not changed much since last i checked here! hehe! I'd really like to hear Cecil's "answers" to these questions! He'll be at it for awhile, until he realizes rhetorical confrontation won't work. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Depends on what your goals are... Slick |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Reflected Energy | Antenna | |||
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | General | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy - new measurement | Antenna | |||
Cecil's Math a Blunder | Antenna |