Refected Power

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/01/2015 04:12 AM, szczepan bialek wrote:

"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?

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.

I'm not talking about a ground connection. Anyone with a cell phone or
transistor radio knows that you don't necessarily need one.

I'm talking about emitting electrons till the spacecraft charges up so
far positive that no more can escape. Voyager 1 has been transmitting
just fine for what, 40 years?

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

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:23:30 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Well, Edison was perfectly right, if you touch one of those DC things,
you're toast.

Why? AC is more lethal volt for volt than DC.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:56:12 -0600, Tim Wescott wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:43:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:23:30 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Well, Edison was perfectly right, if you touch one of those DC things,
you're toast.

Why? AC is more lethal volt for volt than DC.

I'm pretty sure that it's the same if it's peak volts to peak volts.

RMS to RMS, though, yes.

Nope! AC is worse on account of the average human body being - for
electrical purposes - reasonably accurately represented by
100pF || 1500 Ohms (the so-called 'Human Body Model')

 

[szczepan bialek]

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:565DBA70.9040809@electrooptical.net...

On 12/01/2015 04:12 AM, szczepan bialek wrote:

"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?

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.

I'm not talking about a ground connection. Anyone with a cell phone or
transistor radio knows that you don't necessarily need one.

I'm talking about emitting electrons till the spacecraft charges up so
far positive that no more can escape. Voyager 1 has been transmitting
just fine for what, 40 years?

If you know about the field emission you should know that it works in the
two ways.
The conductor gain or expel.
The metal body of the spacecraft gain electrons from the space.

Before sending the spacecraft with the transmitter NASA was sending the
model with the electron gun.
It was the same like checking of the ground.
How much electrons can be obtain from the metal body in the long time.
S*

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/01/2015 12:42 PM, szczepan bialek wrote:

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:565DBA70.9040809@electrooptical.net...
On 12/01/2015 04:12 AM, szczepan bialek wrote:

"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?

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.

I'm not talking about a ground connection. Anyone with a cell phone or
transistor radio knows that you don't necessarily need one.

I'm talking about emitting electrons till the spacecraft charges up so
far positive that no more can escape. Voyager 1 has been transmitting
just fine for what, 40 years?

If you know about the field emission you should know that it works in
the two ways.
The conductor gain or expel.
The metal body of the spacecraft gain electrons from the space.

Before sending the spacecraft with the transmitter NASA was sending the
model with the electron gun.
It was the same like checking of the ground.
How much electrons can be obtain from the metal body in the long time.
S*

You're cracked.

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

 

[szczepan bialek]

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:565DB9B9.9090307@electrooptical.net...

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

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

He is talking also about the cold emission and the photoelectric effect.
He also explains the mystery Oxword clock.

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*

But if that were true, (1) radio waves wouldn't travel at the speed of
light,

You should know that sound and wind are the quite different things. The
electron beam is like the wind and the electric waves are like the sound.
Have they the same speed?

(2) spacecraft would charge up positive until they were unable to
> transmit any more,

The size of metal surface must be enough to gain electrons.

(3) you wouldn't be able to transmit anything
> whatsoever until to cause field emission,

Antenna works in the pulse mode. The fields got large enough when the puse
reach the end of the mast.

and (4) antennas with rounded corners on their elements would be far
less efficient than ones.

It is the power dependent.
The fractal antenna in your cell fone has the sharp-cornered ends.

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.)

The field emission in PORTIONS is not the " wind" but the electric waves.

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.

The radio waves are the electric waves. The same are in the conductor where
the portion of electrons with the high density travel with the speed of
light.
It was published by Faraday in 1846.

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.

The radiation is the far field or the electric waves.
Electromagnetic is the induction only. See near field communication.

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.

I read only the Nobel lecture and oryginal works of Giants.
The textbooks are for students.
S*

 

[szczepan bialek]

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> napisal w wiadomosci
news:rpoq5bdfeqrg05763gkov8tijo8in3tv5o@4ax.com...

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.

Look at the pictures:
http://www.teslasociety.com/victoria.htm

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

 

"I believe he scarcely merits a
mention behind the likes of Marconi, Faraday, Henry, Hertz, Maxwell >and
Lodge! "

Some disagreed enough to have started a court case out of it.

 

"For local to regional distribution, AC works better because one just
needs to run it through a transformer to step the voltage up or down.

For a lot of other things, DC works better. "

I think we are getting to the point where DC is better period. Because now we have DC convertors so efficient, I am sure they rival big old nasty oil filled transformers. Maybe we could put it to the question : Which needs more cooling, an "iron" transformer or a DC to DC or even AC convertor.

Big IGBTs switching at 100 KHz or two, PWMed to make 60 Hz running into a small inductor at each major tap, or even at each house. The DC can be kicked up or down quite easily these days and like alternative energy we might reach a crossover point. Let's put it this way, if I am not mistaken there is more silicon in the Earth than iron.

So it is possible that Edison was right, but at the wrong time. We'll probably never know because I think it will take the technology another twenty years. That is because it doesn't just have to beat the old way, it has to beat the old way enough to pay for the switchover.

 

>"Why? AC is more lethal volt for volt than DC."

That was Edison's assertion in court or wherever they argued the point. He pointed out that it was used for the electric chair IIRC. Of course then we didn't have bleeding heart liberals. If we did, there might be no electricity in this country.

Talk about conjuring up an image of a different history...lol

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:10:55 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

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

So who was right, then? Westinghouse or the, er, other power co?

Yes. No. Or -- there's no good answer to the question as framed.

For local to regional distribution, AC works better because one just
needs to run it through a transformer to step the voltage up or down.

For a lot of other things, DC works better.

I think that history bears out Westinghouse (and Tesla), though.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

"Nope! AC is worse on account of the average human body being - for
electrical purposes - reasonably accurately represented by
100pF || 1500 Ohms (the so-called 'Human Body Model') "

You are merely talking about the load it presents, not the physiological effects. I have some experience in this field as it intrigued me so I experimented with a function generator. The body feels lower frequency AC more than high.

I know it does not seem to stand to reason but it is true. Take and find a sensitive spot for the electrodes. You might need an amplifier but I had a Wavetek 111 which put out about 50 volts/600 ohms.

Put the thing on say 2 KHz and crank up the voltage until it becomes slightly uncomfortable. Now turn down the frequency with the amplitude constant. And that line of Waveteks IS constant. They do not use a Wein bridge and ALC, they generate a sawtooth first and then "distort" it into a proper sine wave. Actually I am impress by the circuit, not so much its topology (well some) but the fact that they got the thing down to 0.5 % THD. I can see why nobody else wanted to do it that way and just stuck with the Wein bridge. There are three adjustments, one for each "layer" of odd order distortion it imposes on the sawtooth wave. Another way to put it is I am not all that impressed that it woks, but I am impressed that they got it to work so well. Nice for some things but not for audio testing. My rig (HP339A) floors at 0.0016 %. I hope that is good enough for now. You know how them audiophiles are.

But it is true that the human body acts resistively with a little capacitance as far as the load, but the perception I would have to almost say it is an inductor, except for one thing.

Instead of lowering the frequency, switch it to square wave. It feels not only about twice as strong, but distinctly different. Of course now you are putting in quite a component at the 20th harmonic which might be working a bit with that capacitance.

It is just more of that weirdness that has not yet been explained. The world is full of it.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/01/2015 01:10 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

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

So who was right, then? Westinghouse or the, er, other power co?

Well, Edison was perfectly right, if you touch one of those DC things,
you're toast.

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

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:23:30 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 12/01/2015 01:10 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
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

So who was right, then? Westinghouse or the, er, other power co?


Well, Edison was perfectly right, if you touch one of those DC things,
you're toast.

Edison was the DC guy. It was Westinghouse backing Tesla that was
pushing AC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/01/2015 03:42 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:23:30 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 12/01/2015 01:10 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
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

So who was right, then? Westinghouse or the, er, other power co?


Well, Edison was perfectly right, if you touch one of those DC things,
you're toast.

Edison was the DC guy. It was Westinghouse backing Tesla that was
pushing AC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

Quite right. OTOH touching the AC one would be approximately as lethal.

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

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:43:05 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:23:30 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Well, Edison was perfectly right, if you touch one of those DC things,
you're toast.

Why? AC is more lethal volt for volt than DC.

I'm pretty sure that it's the same if it's peak volts to peak volts.

RMS to RMS, though, yes.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Phil Allison]

Cursitor Doom wrote:

Why? AC is more lethal volt for volt than DC.

I'm pretty sure that it's the same if it's peak volts to peak volts.

RMS to RMS, though, yes.

Nope! AC is worse on account of the average human body being - for
electrical purposes - reasonably accurately represented by
100pF || 1500 Ohms (the so-called 'Human Body Model')

** Such a simplistic model is nothing like accurate when it come to electric shocks. This article covers the facts fairly well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763825/


..... Phil

 

From there :

>"At 500 V or more, high resistance in the outer layer of the skin breaks down.3 This lowers the body's resistance to current flow greatly. The result is an increase in the amount of current that flows with any given voltage. Areas of skin breakdown are sometimes pinhead-sized wounds that can be easily overlooked. "

You should be able to remember old tellys. With tubes. Here, it is a damped half sine of 70 KHz at a rate of 15,734. On the cathode of a tube telly, there was approximately 7 KV at the anode of the damper tube. This is not DC, this is that pulse I described approximately.

That sombitch burned through my finger all the way to the bone. It was a hole with a little brown patch around it. There was no blood at all. Damnthing was about precauterized.

I got a raise soon after that. Just for the hell of it.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:28:27 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

** Such a simplistic model is nothing like accurate when it come to
electric shocks. This article covers the facts fairly well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763825/

Wow! That chap in figure 5 appears to be in some considerable peril! ;->

 

[Phil Allison]

Cursitor Doom wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:

** Such a simplistic model is nothing like accurate when it come to
electric shocks. This article covers the facts fairly well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763825/

Wow! That chap in figure 5 appears to be in some considerable peril! ;-

** Yeah, but see how he still manages to keep a smile on his face.




..... Phil