On 25 Dec, 11:07, art wrote:
On 20 Dec, 09:03, art wrote:
snip By the way, it is the ELECTROMAGNETIC field that launches the

particles from the radiating surface and it is the MECHANICAL REACTIVE
FORCE that provides the mechanical resonance of the radiator *WHICH
JOINS THE THEORIES OF NEWTON AND . MAXWELL that Einstein struggled for
in vain.
For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with
respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to
prove your point.
Regards
Art Unwin, *a limey no less

I made an error int he above statement which I need to correct.
The particles used in the transition from Gauss are STATIC particles
of the inter galaxial kind which have the propensity to settle on
diamagnetic materials without rejection This being the same material
from which antennas are made of. When a majority of free electron
are in a ELECTROSTATIC field created by a change in voltage levitation
takes place on static particles. This is somewhat opposite to
ELECTROMAGNETIC levitation altho there are also other differences
which I need not to go into at this time. The circuit that providees
such conditions is a tank circuit where the radiator must be a
multiple
of one wave length to ensure equilibrium is maintained within
the Gaussian field
Art

Let me clear this up a bit further because of the related posts

Articles that refer to frogs elc being levitated are refering to
the magnetic field of 1 to 10 tesla where the leviatated
material diamagnetic.
Articles refering to the electron gun should realise that the
electrons are
not in the majority and in fact the electrons are part and parcel of
the
material being heated by being in orbit. It takes considerable power
to remove the electron from orbit from its native material and like a
tungsten lamp dissapates over time which when DC is used is called
"notching"
The same thing happens of course when heating is done by AC except we
have
two notches in different places instead of one which is why DC driven
lamps only have a half life.
So let me reiterate.In a electron gun the electron is torn away
from its orbit which diminishes the mass of the parent material.
With respect to a passive or static particle the particle is
levitated from a diamagnetic surface beyond the arbitary Gaussian
field
where when the electrostatic field diminishes the surface is
repopulated. That is if the operation is not in a vacuum!
Ofcourse some particles are already in motion when the electrostatic
field dissapates such that some particles have not had time to escape
the arbitary field, so I suggest these return to the diamagnetic
material
where all the surface space has now been taken by replacement static
particles thus leaving only the space below the surface for them to
rest and decay.
I hope that makes things clearer.
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:49:52 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

So let me reiterate.In a electron gun the electron is torn away
from its orbit which diminishes the mass of the parent material.

Hi Art,

The week is up, and your research reveals you have gone off into the
ditch. You have utterly failed to account for the necessity of the
"work function" when it comes to separating an electron from any
surface (your appeal to diamagnetics is specious).

I could go deeper into your absurdity of mass reduction above by
asking you how much mass would a filament be reduced by with a typical
cathode current of 1 Ampere - but I will save the board the boredom of
your string of non-answers when you are invited to specifically
support your own specific statements.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 30 Dec, 09:48, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:49:52 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

So let me reiterate.In a electron gun the electron is torn away
from its orbit which diminishes the mass of the parent material.

Hi Art,

The week is up, and your research reveals you have gone off into the
ditch. *You have utterly failed to account for the necessity of the
"work function" when it comes to separating an electron from any
surface (your appeal to diamagnetics is specious).

I could go deeper into your absurdity of mass reduction above by
asking you how much mass would a filament be reduced by with a typical
cathode current of 1 Ampere - but I will save the board the boredom of
your string of non-answers when you are invited to specifically
support your own specific statements.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

While the three cavaliers Richard , Richard and Richard were away
we took advantage of their absence. Discussed things in a civil manner
where we were able to resolve the outstanding matters and close this
thread.
You need to go elseware to spew your comments and irritate people
or start another thread, this subject has been resolved to my
satisfaction
Have a great new year incase I miss your missives
Art

Richard Clark wrote:
"The week is up and your (Art`s) search reveals you have gone off into
the ditch."

Look for the answer to how electrons escape a material on page 172 of
Terman`s 1955 opus. On page 173 Terman writes:
"It can be considered as an evaporation of electrons in which the energy
the electron must give up in escaping corresponds to the latent heat of
vaporization of the liquid."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:18:27 -0600, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
"The week is up and your (Art`s) search reveals you have gone off into
the ditch."

Look for the answer to how electrons escape a material on page 172 of
Terman`s 1955 opus. On page 173 Terman writes:
"It can be considered as an evaporation of electrons in which the energy
the electron must give up in escaping corresponds to the latent heat of
vaporization of the liquid."

Hi Richard,

A very good citation there. However, it might confuse Prior Arthur in
the allusion to liquid.

However, to further the mysteries of diamagnetics, it would be
interesting to read how Prior Art describes how water (a diamagnetic)
refuses to radiate when his proposition is so heavily invested with
that phenomenon.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Harrison wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"The week is up and your (Art`s) search reveals you have gone off into
the ditch."

Look for the answer to how electrons escape a material on page 172 of
Terman`s 1955 opus. On page 173 Terman writes:
"It can be considered as an evaporation of electrons in which the energy
the electron must give up in escaping corresponds to the latent heat of
vaporization of the liquid."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

And he then goes on to say,

"The properties of matter are such that thermionic emission of electrons
does not become appreciable until temperatures of the order of 1000
degrees K or higher are reached."

The quotes are from the "Thermionic Emission of Electrons" section.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL