Refected Power

C

Cursitor Doom

Guest
Not really a "basic" question, but here goes:

I'm just reading up on the subject of power factor in electrical supply
lines and how as the PF heads down towards zero (as the phase difference
between i and v gets more pronounced) more and more power is returned to
the generator and how this can be fixed by adding capacitance or
inductance in parallel with the load.

This struck me as incredibly similar to the situation with RF
transmission lines where an antenna - if not at its resonant frequency -
can be 'seen' as inductive or capacitive and when such is the case, power
is reflected back to the transmitter, but this can be fixed by adding
compensatory capacitance or inductance in parallel with the tx line.

Would I be right to infer from the above that these two phenomena are in
fact one and the same? I just wonder if it's correct to do that, because
we never seem to hear the terms 'power factor' applied to RF tx lines,
nor 'reflections' applied to power lines. Can some kind soul clarify?

thanks!
 
In article <n3er25$1or$4@dont-email.me>, curd@notformail.com says...
Not really a "basic" question, but here goes:

I'm just reading up on the subject of power factor in electrical supply
lines and how as the PF heads down towards zero (as the phase difference
between i and v gets more pronounced) more and more power is returned to
the generator and how this can be fixed by adding capacitance or
inductance in parallel with the load.

This struck me as incredibly similar to the situation with RF
transmission lines where an antenna - if not at its resonant frequency -
can be 'seen' as inductive or capacitive and when such is the case, power
is reflected back to the transmitter, but this can be fixed by adding
compensatory capacitance or inductance in parallel with the tx line.

Would I be right to infer from the above that these two phenomena are in
fact one and the same? I just wonder if it's correct to do that, because
we never seem to hear the terms 'power factor' applied to RF tx lines,
nor 'reflections' applied to power lines. Can some kind soul clarify?

thanks!
Click to expand...

I guess in a basic way of looking at it, yes that is just about it.

In both cases you are trying to get the line matched so that phase
angles match at the source of the signal.

In cases of antennas that have transmission lines over a quarter wave
its best to match them at the source of the problem. At least that is
my opinion.

With 50/60Hz systems, the chance of you being that far way from your
feeders are kind of nil? I mean we are talking like 4+ M feet here :)

Jamie
 
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:24:21 +0100, szczepan bialek wrote:

"Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:n3er25$1or$4@dont-email.me...
Not really a "basic" question, but here goes:

I'm just reading up on the subject of power factor in electrical supply
lines and how as the PF heads down towards zero (as the phase
difference between i and v gets more pronounced) more and more power is
returned to the generator and how this can be fixed by adding
capacitance or inductance in parallel with the load.

This struck me as incredibly similar to the situation with RF
transmission lines where an antenna - if not at its resonant frequency
- can be 'seen' as inductive or capacitive and when such is the case,
power is reflected back to the transmitter, but this can be fixed by
adding compensatory capacitance or inductance in parallel with the tx
line.

Would I be right to infer from the above that these two phenomena are
in fact one and the same? I just wonder if it's correct to do that,
because we never seem to hear the terms 'power factor' applied to RF tx
lines, nor 'reflections' applied to power lines. Can some kind soul
clarify?

The electrical supply lines are the closed circuits. There no
reflections. The reflections are possible in the open circuit. The radio
mast is the open end of such circuit.

The end of the mast radiate. The rest is in Steinmetz book:
The radiation is described here:
https://archive.org/stream/radiationlightil00steirich#page/14/mode/2up

You can see that the radiation (electric waves) transports negative
charge. The charge is rythmically expelled from the end of the
transmitting antenna.
If the all is perfectly tuned than no reflection at all. The all charge
jump off in the air.
In this book you find everything about the antennas.
S*
Click to expand...

I think that is the key difference I was looking for; many thanks for
that.
 
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:00:00 -0500, M Philbrook wrote:

With 50/60Hz systems, the chance of you being that far way from your
feeders are kind of nil? I mean we are talking like 4+ M feet here :)
Click to expand...

Yes, point taken. :)
 
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:49:03 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

That's silly. How do spacecraft antennas work then?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
Click to expand...

That's a bit unfair, Phil. Clearly English isn't his first language but
the meaning is clear enough.
 
"Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:n3er25$1or$4@dont-email.me...
Not really a "basic" question, but here goes:

I'm just reading up on the subject of power factor in electrical supply
lines and how as the PF heads down towards zero (as the phase difference
between i and v gets more pronounced) more and more power is returned to
the generator and how this can be fixed by adding capacitance or
inductance in parallel with the load.

This struck me as incredibly similar to the situation with RF
transmission lines where an antenna - if not at its resonant frequency -
can be 'seen' as inductive or capacitive and when such is the case, power
is reflected back to the transmitter, but this can be fixed by adding
compensatory capacitance or inductance in parallel with the tx line.

Would I be right to infer from the above that these two phenomena are in
fact one and the same? I just wonder if it's correct to do that, because
we never seem to hear the terms 'power factor' applied to RF tx lines,
nor 'reflections' applied to power lines. Can some kind soul clarify?
Click to expand...
The electrical supply lines are the closed circuits. There no reflections.
The reflections are possible in the open circuit. The radio mast is the open
end of such circuit.

The end of the mast radiate. The rest is in Steinmetz book:
The radiation is described here:
https://archive.org/stream/radiationlightil00steirich#page/14/mode/2up

You can see that the radiation (electric waves) transports negative charge.
The charge is rythmically expelled from the end of the transmitting antenna.
If the all is perfectly tuned than no reflection at all. The all charge jump
off in the air.
In this book you find everything about the antennas.
S*
 
On 11/30/2015 12:24 PM, szczepan bialek wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:n3er25$1or$4@dont-email.me...
Not really a "basic" question, but here goes:

I'm just reading up on the subject of power factor in electrical supply
lines and how as the PF heads down towards zero (as the phase difference
between i and v gets more pronounced) more and more power is returned to
the generator and how this can be fixed by adding capacitance or
inductance in parallel with the load.

This struck me as incredibly similar to the situation with RF
transmission lines where an antenna - if not at its resonant frequency -
can be 'seen' as inductive or capacitive and when such is the case, power
is reflected back to the transmitter, but this can be fixed by adding
compensatory capacitance or inductance in parallel with the tx line.

Would I be right to infer from the above that these two phenomena are in
fact one and the same? I just wonder if it's correct to do that, because
we never seem to hear the terms 'power factor' applied to RF tx lines,
nor 'reflections' applied to power lines. Can some kind soul clarify?

The electrical supply lines are the closed circuits. There no reflections.
The reflections are possible in the open circuit. The radio mast is the
open end of such circuit.

The end of the mast radiate. The rest is in Steinmetz book:
The radiation is described here:
https://archive.org/stream/radiationlightil00steirich#page/14/mode/2up

You can see that the radiation (electric waves) transports negative
charge. The charge is rythmically expelled from the end of the
transmitting antenna.
If the all is perfectly tuned than no reflection at all. The all charge
jump off in the air.
In this book you find everything about the antennas.
S*
Click to expand...

That's silly. How do spacecraft antennas work then?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:00:00 -0500, M Philbrook wrote:

In article <n3er25$1or$4@dont-email.me>, curd@notformail.com says...

Not really a "basic" question, but here goes:

I'm just reading up on the subject of power factor in electrical supply
lines and how as the PF heads down towards zero (as the phase
difference between i and v gets more pronounced) more and more power is
returned to the generator and how this can be fixed by adding
capacitance or inductance in parallel with the load.

This struck me as incredibly similar to the situation with RF
transmission lines where an antenna - if not at its resonant frequency
- can be 'seen' as inductive or capacitive and when such is the case,
power is reflected back to the transmitter, but this can be fixed by
adding compensatory capacitance or inductance in parallel with the tx
line.

Would I be right to infer from the above that these two phenomena are
in fact one and the same? I just wonder if it's correct to do that,
because we never seem to hear the terms 'power factor' applied to RF tx
lines, nor 'reflections' applied to power lines. Can some kind soul
clarify?

thanks!


I guess in a basic way of looking at it, yes that is just about it.

In both cases you are trying to get the line matched so that phase
angles match at the source of the signal.

In cases of antennas that have transmission lines over a quarter wave
its best to match them at the source of the problem. At least that is my
opinion.

With 50/60Hz systems, the chance of you being that far way from your
feeders are kind of nil? I mean we are talking like 4+ M feet here :)

Jamie
Click to expand...

"Reflected power" is an odd concept for local power lines, to be sure.

As a point of interest (to us, it matters deeply to some), though, if you
start at Bonneville Dam on the Oregon-Washington border and travel 1/4
wave of 60Hz south, you'll end up somewhere in between San Francisco and
Los Angeles. Since the impedance of high-frequency transmission lines is
in excess of 100 ohms (I don't know how much more, I'm eyeballing it),
and the impedance of the load at the substation is probably less than 10
ohms, this can be an ISSUE. It's part of the reason that long-range
power transmission is DC.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
On 11/30/2015 01:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:49:03 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

That's silly. How do spacecraft antennas work then?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

That's a bit unfair, Phil. Clearly English isn't his first language but
the meaning is clear enough.
Click to expand...

Quoting Steinmetz on how antennas work is like quoting Aristotle on
mechanics, I'm afraid. They don't eject any charge whatsoever unless
you hit them hard enough to generate corona discharge. It's entirely a
field effect.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
In article <K66dnRv4otKODMHLnZ2dnUVZ5rSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
seemywebsite@myfooter.really says...
In cases of antennas that have transmission lines over a quarter wave
its best to match them at the source of the problem. At least that is my
opinion.

With 50/60Hz systems, the chance of you being that far way from your
feeders are kind of nil? I mean we are talking like 4+ M feet here :)

Jamie

"Reflected power" is an odd concept for local power lines, to be sure.

As a point of interest (to us, it matters deeply to some), though, if you
start at Bonneville Dam on the Oregon-Washington border and travel 1/4
wave of 60Hz south, you'll end up somewhere in between San Francisco and
Los Angeles. Since the impedance of high-frequency transmission lines is
in excess of 100 ohms (I don't know how much more, I'm eyeballing it),
and the impedance of the load at the substation is probably less than 10
ohms, this can be an ISSUE. It's part of the reason that long-range
power transmission is DC.

--
Click to expand...

Maybe But can think of more practical reasons why they use HV DC.

Jamie
 
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:37:44 -0500, M Philbrook wrote:

In article <K66dnRv4otKODMHLnZ2dnUVZ5rSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
seemywebsite@myfooter.really says...
In cases of antennas that have transmission lines over a quarter wave
its best to match them at the source of the problem. At least that is
my opinion.

With 50/60Hz systems, the chance of you being that far way from your
feeders are kind of nil? I mean we are talking like 4+ M feet here :)

Jamie

"Reflected power" is an odd concept for local power lines, to be sure.

As a point of interest (to us, it matters deeply to some), though, if
you start at Bonneville Dam on the Oregon-Washington border and travel
1/4 wave of 60Hz south, you'll end up somewhere in between San
Francisco and Los Angeles. Since the impedance of high-frequency
transmission lines is in excess of 100 ohms (I don't know how much
more, I'm eyeballing it), and the impedance of the load at the
substation is probably less than 10 ohms, this can be an ISSUE. It's
part of the reason that long-range power transmission is DC.

--


Maybe But can think of more practical reasons why they use HV DC.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of good reasons -- I'm pretty sure that the biggest two are
losses in AC transmission lines that aren't there with DC, and the
ability to intertie two grids running off of different clocks.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
On 11/30/2015 08:50 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:37:44 -0500, M Philbrook wrote:

In article <K66dnRv4otKODMHLnZ2dnUVZ5rSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
seemywebsite@myfooter.really says...
In cases of antennas that have transmission lines over a quarter wave
its best to match them at the source of the problem. At least that is
my opinion.

With 50/60Hz systems, the chance of you being that far way from your
feeders are kind of nil? I mean we are talking like 4+ M feet here :)

Jamie

"Reflected power" is an odd concept for local power lines, to be sure.

As a point of interest (to us, it matters deeply to some), though, if
you start at Bonneville Dam on the Oregon-Washington border and travel
1/4 wave of 60Hz south, you'll end up somewhere in between San
Francisco and Los Angeles. Since the impedance of high-frequency
transmission lines is in excess of 100 ohms (I don't know how much
more, I'm eyeballing it), and the impedance of the load at the
substation is probably less than 10 ohms, this can be an ISSUE. It's
part of the reason that long-range power transmission is DC.

--


Maybe But can think of more practical reasons why they use HV DC.

There's a lot of good reasons -- I'm pretty sure that the biggest two are
losses in AC transmission lines that aren't there with DC, and the
ability to intertie two grids running off of different clocks.
Click to expand...

One big reason AIUI is that corona losses depend mostly on peak voltage,
so you can transmit nearly twice the power on a DC line.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
Użytkownik "Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:n3i1p2$ikn$8@dont-email.me...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:24:21 +0100, szczepan bialek wrote:

"Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:n3er25$1or$4@dont-email.me...
Not really a "basic" question,

The electrical supply lines are the closed circuits. There no
reflections. The reflections are possible in the open circuit. The radio
mast is the open end of such circuit.

The end of the mast radiate. The rest is in Steinmetz book:
The radiation is described here:
https://archive.org/stream/radiationlightil00steirich#page/14/mode/2up

You can see that the radiation (electric waves) transports negative
charge. The charge is rythmically expelled from the end of the
transmitting antenna.
If the all is perfectly tuned than no reflection at all. The all charge
jump off in the air.
In this book you find everything about the antennas.
S*

I think that is the key difference I was looking for; many thanks for
that.
Click to expand...

The all is here:
"The secret lay principally in the direct current application in a small
time interval. " From:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_24.htm

The radio was the top secret in XIX and XX century.
Now the all is online. But not in the textbooks.
It will be after 250 years like the Copernicus. Now is 125 years after Tesla
discovery.

But in the XX from time to time was published the true information:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1929-09-22.htm

S*
 
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:55:53 +0100, "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl>
wrote:

U?ytkownik "Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
news:n3i1p2$ikn$8@dont-email.me...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:24:21 +0100, szczepan bialek wrote:

"Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
news:n3er25$1or$4@dont-email.me...
Not really a "basic" question,

The electrical supply lines are the closed circuits. There no
reflections. The reflections are possible in the open circuit. The radio
mast is the open end of such circuit.

The end of the mast radiate. The rest is in Steinmetz book:
The radiation is described here:
https://archive.org/stream/radiationlightil00steirich#page/14/mode/2up

You can see that the radiation (electric waves) transports negative
charge. The charge is rythmically expelled from the end of the
transmitting antenna.
If the all is perfectly tuned than no reflection at all. The all charge
jump off in the air.
In this book you find everything about the antennas.
S*

I think that is the key difference I was looking for; many thanks for
that.

The all is here:
"The secret lay principally in the direct current application in a small
time interval. " From:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_24.htm

The radio was the top secret in XIX and XX century.
Now the all is online. But not in the textbooks.
It will be after 250 years like the Copernicus. Now is 125 years after Tesla
discovery.

But in the XX from time to time was published the true information:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1929-09-22.htm

S*

Tesla was a crackpot and when he grew old he was nuts.
Click to expand...

w.
 
"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:565C8C0F.60708@electrooptical.net...
On 11/30/2015 12:24 PM, szczepan bialek wrote:


The electrical supply lines are the closed circuits. There no
reflections.
The reflections are possible in the open circuit. The radio mast is the
open end of such circuit.

The end of the mast radiate. The rest is in Steinmetz book:
The radiation is described here:
https://archive.org/stream/radiationlightil00steirich#page/14/mode/2up

You can see that the radiation (electric waves) transports negative
charge. The charge is rythmically expelled from the end of the
transmitting antenna.
If the all is perfectly tuned than no reflection at all. The all charge
jump off in the air.
In this book you find everything about the antennas.
S*


That's silly. How do spacecraft antennas work then?
Click to expand...

Do not you know that (for example):
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes ques-
tioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth.
By "connected to earth" I do not necessarily mean an ordinary metallic
connection as used for ordinary wire telegraphs.
The earth wire may have a condenser in series with it, or it may be con-
nected to what is really equivalent, a capacity area placed close to the
surface
of the ground (Fig. 4)". From:
http://users.isr.ist.utl.pt/~vab/FTELE/marconi-lecture.pdf

But Marconi is like Aristotele. So look at this:
"The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such
as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles may be
spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to
the Earth, despite "common" being a more appropriate term for such a
connection. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the
power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) " From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_%28electricity%29

Radio was the top secret. Now you know that it is the device to pump the
electrons from the earth to air. But the electrons are pumped in the
PORTIONS.
S*
Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Click to expand...

So you have the possibilities to check if light transports electrons.
For example through the transparent insulator. It will be the Edison
experiment who covered the bulb with the metal foil and had the source of DC
floving to the earth.
S*
 
"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:88idnfT0GZn5BMHLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
On 11/30/2015 01:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:49:03 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

That's silly. How do spacecraft antennas work then?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

That's a bit unfair, Phil. Clearly English isn't his first language but
the meaning is clear enough.


Quoting Steinmetz on how antennas work is like quoting Aristotle on
mechanics, I'm afraid. They don't eject any charge whatsoever unless
you hit them hard enough to generate corona discharge. It's entirely a
field effect.
Click to expand...

After Tesla and Steinmetz was Richardson:
"It has been suspected for a long time that electrons-could be
pulled out of metals without the co-operation of gases by sufficiently
strong
electric fields. These currents are carried by electrons and they may be
quite large. From:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1928/richardson-lecture.pdf

Before the corona discharge is the field electron emission. Without the
sound and visual atractions.
In the pulse mode the the emission is 150 times stronger.
S*
 
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:22:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

One big reason AIUI is that corona losses depend mostly on peak voltage,
so you can transmit nearly twice the power on a DC line.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
Click to expand...

So who was right, then? Westinghouse or the, er, other power co?
 
On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 10:07:50 +0100, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:55:53 +0100, "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl
wrote:


U?ytkownik "Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
news:n3i1p2$ikn$8@dont-email.me...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:24:21 +0100, szczepan bialek wrote:

"Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
news:n3er25$1or$4@dont-email.me...
Not really a "basic" question,

The electrical supply lines are the closed circuits. There no
reflections. The reflections are possible in the open circuit. The
radio mast is the open end of such circuit.

The end of the mast radiate. The rest is in Steinmetz book:
The radiation is described here:
https://archive.org/stream/radiationlightil00steirich#page/14/
mode/2up

You can see that the radiation (electric waves) transports negative
charge. The charge is rythmically expelled from the end of the
transmitting antenna.
If the all is perfectly tuned than no reflection at all. The all
charge jump off in the air.
In this book you find everything about the antennas.
S*

I think that is the key difference I was looking for; many thanks for
that.

The all is here:
"The secret lay principally in the direct current application in a small
time interval. " From:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_24.htm

The radio was the top secret in XIX and XX century.
Now the all is online. But not in the textbooks.
It will be after 250 years like the Copernicus. Now is 125 years after
Tesla discovery.

But in the XX from time to time was published the true information:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1929-09-22.htm

S*

Tesla was a crackpot and when he grew old he was nuts.
Click to expand...

And broke! But there's a fine line between madness and genius and I
prefer to believe he was the latter.
 
On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:12:59 +0100, szczepan bialek wrote:

Tesla was Father of the AC and Father of radio.
Do not you know that?
S*
Click to expand...

I don't doubt Tesla's importance in Power systems, but in terms of
contribution to the development of radio, I believe he scarcely merits a
mention behind the likes of Marconi, Faraday, Henry, Hertz, Maxwell and
Lodge!
 
On 12/01/2015 04:27 AM, szczepan bialek wrote:
"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:88idnfT0GZn5BMHLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
On 11/30/2015 01:37 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:49:03 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

That's silly. How do spacecraft antennas work then?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

That's a bit unfair, Phil. Clearly English isn't his first language but
the meaning is clear enough.


Quoting Steinmetz on how antennas work is like quoting Aristotle on
mechanics, I'm afraid. They don't eject any charge whatsoever unless
you hit them hard enough to generate corona discharge. It's entirely a
field effect.

After Tesla and Steinmetz was Richardson:
"It has been suspected for a long time that electrons-could be
pulled out of metals without the co-operation of gases by sufficiently
strong
electric fields. These currents are carried by electrons and they may
be quite large. From:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1928/richardson-lecture.pdf
Click to expand...

Richardson is talking about how vacuum tubes work, not antennas. His
talk is on thermionic emission from heated cathodes. Nice try.

Everybody knows you can turn up the field enough to cause field
emission. Just about all the electron microscopes I've ever used have
been based on field emission. (There was one old Hitachi that still had
a heater in it, but that was long ago.) That's entirely beside the
point here.
Before the corona discharge is the field electron emission. Without the
sound and visual atractions.
In the pulse mode the the emission is 150 times stronger.
S*
Click to expand...

But if that were true, (1) radio waves wouldn't travel at the speed of
light, (2) spacecraft would charge up positive until they were unable to
transmit any more, (3) you wouldn't be able to transmit anything
whatsoever until the fields got large enough to cause field emission,
and (4) antennas with rounded corners on their elements would be far
less efficient than sharp-cornered ones.

None of which is observed. Your cell phone does not cause field
emission next to your ear, for a start. (You'd know if it did, believe me.)

You can also build interferometers with radio waves, and beam antennas,
and other things that depend on the field picture of antennas. None of
which is true of field-emitted electrons.

Antennas work because charges radiate when you accelerate them. All the
fanciness is in figuring out how to make all this (electromagnetic)
radiation come out in phase in the direction you want it.

If you're actually interested in the subject, you can get an
international-edition copy of Balanis's antenna book for about $20 on
amazon.co.uk. It's a good read if you feel like making an effort to
understand.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top