What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator
compared with
with the number of electrons emmitted due to current flow?
What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to
form a radiation field?
Regards
Art

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator
compared with
with the number of electrons emmitted due to current flow?
What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to
form a radiation field?
Regards
Art


what is a 'magnetic electron'?? and why would electrons be emmitted due to
current flow?

art wrote:
What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator
compared with with the number of electrons emmitted due to current
flow?

Art, emitted electrons are corona discharges. What is
emitted from an antenna is primarily photons. Each
photon has both electric and magnetic properties
and the ratio is 377 ohms in the far field.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 10 May 2007 00:23:40 GMT, "Dave" wrote:


"art" wrote in message
roups.com...
What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator
compared with
with the number of electrons emmitted due to current flow?
What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to
form a radiation field?
Regards
Art


what is a 'magnetic electron'?? and why would electrons be emmitted due to
current flow?


Hi Dave,

All electrons are magnetic. All electrons flow in current. Electrons
emmitted (sic) would first have to be accelerated by a potential that
exceeds the work function of the metal they inhabit, and then avoid
the resistance to their movement found outside that metal. This is
called induction current.

Emission, except in a vacuum, is considered to be a nuisance as it
causes havoc in the vicinity (such as superheating air to
luminescence). There would be electrons of emission only in the first
few micrometers from the conductor (not sure why that would be of any
particular advantage). Of course, all such terms and their usages are
conventional. Their usage and application in this thread probably
have meanings that deviate wildly from the norms of accepted usage.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 9 May, 18:49, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
I am looking for the ratio of particals emitted.

To the best of my knowledge, all coherent photons are
identical.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

If they are all identical how do they manage to avoid combining energy
prior to escaping from the enclosed surface? I noted that you said
both had
electric and magnetic properties but I could not rationaly deduce that
they were the same. You also stated that the electrons were corona
discharges
which is new to me. If this is all basic physics shouldn't everybody
be in agreement with respect to the transition to a magnetic field.
Tom states I have a problem with the basics so if there is uniformity
in the resposes I would be happy to realigne my thoughts but he
supplied no input
of value only a personal opinion.
Regards
Art

On 9 May, 18:44, Tom Ring wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:

What is the ratio of magnetic electrons emitted from a radiator
compared with with the number of electrons emmitted due to current

flow?

Art, emitted electrons are corona discharges. What is
emitted from an antenna is primarily photons. Each
photon has both electric and magnetic properties
and the ratio is 377 ohms in the far field.

Art does seem to have some serious problems with basic physics. Not too
surprising.

I guess after that remark he'll now characterize me as a guru.

tom
K0TAR

As you have stated I seem to have serious problems. If that is the
case the remedy is to familiarise myself to what everybody calls basic
physics.
By asking questions I am seaching for a correction to my so called
erronious views. Is that a no no on this newsgroup? Since it is a
matter of basics the thread should be extremely short as there will be
no disagreement !
I could not classify you as a guru if you are not willing to put a rod
into the ground by giving a response that would prove or not prove to
be in agreement with all.
Art

art wrote:
I noted that you said both had
electric and magnetic properties but I could not rationaly deduce that
they were the same.

Balanis has a pretty good treatment of the
subject but I don't have that book with me.

You also stated that the electrons were corona discharges
which is new to me.

Instead of becoming energetic enough to leave the
conductor, electrons normally shed their excess
energy in the form of photons.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 9 May, 20:23, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
I noted that you said both had
electric and magnetic properties but I could not rationaly deduce that
they were the same.

Balanis has a pretty good treatment of the
subject but I don't have that book with me.

You also stated that the electrons were corona discharges
which is new to me.

Instead of becoming energetic enough to leave the
conductor, electrons normally shed their excess
energy in the form of photons.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil,
I think that we are all in agreement now on the legitimacy of adding a
time
metric to Gauss's equation unless it was a quirk of luck that two
programs came to agreement. We also know that for a dc current flow we
cannot produce a radiating field because we must have two vectors
created by a time varying field. In other words the particles must be
different in some way
as like particals cannot collide or combine to form a radiative field.
I believe we also know that any combination of particals must occur
after release from the gravitational field and where I could go along
with your corona description
and the interface impedance of 377 ohms. From this analysis the
particles could well have the same properties as you state but of
different polarities which prevents initial collisions or a joining
mechanism. If this conforms with
known basic physics then one should see the importance of the ratio of
emitted particles. If this does not conform to known basic figures I
would like to know why .Then my thinking becomes in conformance with
the elite in this group such that sniping and derision can come to an
end. Gauss gave me the overall picture of the formation of radiation
as a completed jigsaw puzzle picture but I am looking for knoweledge
of the individual connecting parts for a more detailed analysis which
is accepted by those familiar with basic physics
to bring myself inline with those knoweledgable in the arts. All I
need is some answers to my question that evokes agreement from all and
the thread gets closure. If it is basic physics it should not be that
hard for the experts to explain. Cecil you are familiar with the many
aspects of radiation thus you have a great opportunity to supply the
required info that cannot be refuted by others .,So sieze the
opportunity where others are shying away.
Best regards
Art
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
"What is the combination ratio required of both types of electrons to
form a radiation field?"

A company called Tigertek, Inc. answers questions such as this. Art can
search on "amateur radio fact of the day from Tigertek" and their pages
should appear. Click on "Facts of the Day, Software and Forums". Select
"November 26, and see: "Electromagnetic E/H Ratio". Click and find:
"----at a distance of several wavelengths or more from any type of
electromagnetic radiator the ratio of electric to magnetic field
strength (E/H) always becomes equal to approximately 377 ohms, which is
the approximate electromagnetic impedance of space."

Jan 3: Electron Facts

July 29: Does Your Antenna Radiate Particles?
"----Unlike protons and neutrons, photons have zero rest mass. (Albert
Einstein`s special relativity theory predicted that massless particles
travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.) Furthermore, unlike protons
and neutrons which are composed of smaller particles called quarks that
are bound together with massless smaller particles called gluons,
photons (and electrons) are elemental particles that are not composed of
smaller particles. Transmitting antennas do indeed radiate particles."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Thu, 10 May 2007 00:18:25 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

"----Unlike protons and neutrons, photons have zero rest mass. (Albert
Einstein`s special relativity theory predicted that massless particles
travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.)

It should be added that "particles" accelerated to the speed of light
(radiation) have infinite mass requiring infinite energy to get them
there.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC