Father of the famous vector wrote in 1884 (before the Hertz experiment):
"The whole of the energy then enters in through the external surface of the
wire, and by the general theorem the amount entering in must just account
for the heat developed owing to the resistance,"

A few days ago Jimp wrote:
"An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
terminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna".

So "enters in = radiates from"?
Can anybody help?
S*

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:11:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

Father of the famous vector wrote in 1884 (before the Hertz experiment):
"The whole of the energy then enters in through the external surface of the
wire, and by the general theorem the amount entering in must just account
for the heat developed owing to the resistance,"

A few days ago Jimp wrote:
"An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
terminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna".

So "enters in = radiates from"?
Can anybody help?
S*


Sure, what is your problem?
Need a fresh diaper?
Someone to push your wheelchair?

w.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:11:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

A few days ago Jimp wrote:
"An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
terminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna".

Hello Jimp.

Did you put an apostrophe in the wrong place ("it's" should be "its") or do
we have a wild, roving electron making its presence known? :-

73, Ian.

Ian wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:11:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

A few days ago Jimp wrote:
"An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
terminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna".

Hello Jimp.

Did you put an apostrophe in the wrong place ("it's" should be "its") or do
we have a wild, roving electron making its presence known? :-

73, Ian.

Oh, I am forever screwing up it's/its when I'm typing fast and not
particularly thinking about what I am writting; i.e. when responding to
Polish morons and spending as little time as possible on it.

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:11:31 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So "enters in = radiates from"?

To the extent that RF energy penetrates to a skin effect depth, the conductor is not perfect and dissipates some of the power. All real-world antennas dissipate some of the RF power in I^2*R (and possibly dielectric) losses. In an efficient antenna, most of the system energy is "lost" in space as coherent radiation.

When the free electrons in a conductor are acting as a bucket brigade for the RF fields/waves/photons, they are essentially vibrating in place because of their very slow drift velocity. Those I^2*R losses in the wire are due to coherent RF photons that are absorbed by electrons and not re-emitted as coherent RF photons but are instead converted to heat energy, the price that Mother Nature requires be paid for all that vibration. In an antenna that is 90% efficient, 10% of the coherent RF energy is converted into non-coherent heat energy. That's the energy that Poynting was talking about.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:11:31 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So: enters in = radiates from;?

To the extent that RF energy penetrates to a skin effect depth, the
conductor is not perfect and dissipates some of the power. All real-world
antennas dissipate some of the RF power in I^2*R (and possibly dielectric)
losses. In an efficient antenna, most of the system energy is "lost" in
space as coherent radiation.

When the free electrons in a conductor are acting as a bucket brigade for
the RF fields/waves/photons, they are essentially vibrating in place
because of their very slow drift velocity. Those I^2*R losses in the wire
are due to coherent RF photons that are absorbed by electrons and not
re-emitted as coherent RF photons but are instead converted to heat energy,
the price that Mother Nature requires be paid for all that vibration. In an
antenna that is 90% efficient, 10% of the coherent RF energy is converted
into non-coherent heat energy. That's the energy that Poynting was talking
about.

Pointing was writting in 1884. He described the DC current.
His result is caused by the assumption that the Biot-Savart law is right. Is
it?
S*

wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:
Hello Jimp.

Did you put an apostrophe in the wrong place ("it's" should be "its") or
do
we have a wild, roving electron making its presence known? :-

73, Ian.

Oh, I am forever screwing up it's/its when I'm typing fast and not
particularly thinking about what I am writting; i.e. when responding to
Polish morons and spending as little time as possible on it.

Hello Jimp. I still prefer to think of it as an electron doing its own
thing for independence.

Seems to me that most of the postings from Szczepan tend to be
copy-and-paste ones rather than "original thought" ones. I suspect he is an
old East European having a laugh at us Westerners but I wouldn't dispute the
other Ian's suggestion that we're dealing with a Turing test.

Is a moron akin to a proton?

73, Ian.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:11:31 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So: enters in = radiates from;?

To the extent that RF energy penetrates to a skin effect depth, the
conductor is not perfect and dissipates some of the power. All real-world
antennas dissipate some of the RF power in I^2*R (and possibly dielectric)
losses. In an efficient antenna, most of the system energy is "lost" in
space as coherent radiation.

When the free electrons in a conductor are acting as a bucket brigade for
the RF fields/waves/photons, they are essentially vibrating in place
because of their very slow drift velocity. Those I^2*R losses in the wire
are due to coherent RF photons that are absorbed by electrons and not
re-emitted as coherent RF photons but are instead converted to heat energy,
the price that Mother Nature requires be paid for all that vibration. In an
antenna that is 90% efficient, 10% of the coherent RF energy is converted
into non-coherent heat energy. That's the energy that Poynting was talking
about.

Pointing was writting in 1884. He described the DC current.
His result is caused by the assumption that the Biot-Savart law is right. Is
it?
S*

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about antennas or how they work.

You don't even understand what an antenna is or the difference between
an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field.

Electrostatic and magnetostatic fields are created by DC.

An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
teminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna
and also coverts the electromagnetic energy which antenna intercepts
into AC electrical energy at it's terminals.

That is ELECTROMAGNETIC energy, not magnetostatic nor electrostatic
energy.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law

"The Biot-Savart law is fundamental to magnetostatics, playing a similar
role to Coulomb's law in electrostatics. When magnetostatics does not
apply, the Biot-Savart law should be replaced by Jefimenko's equations."

What that means, you babbling idiot, is that Jefimenko's equations apply
to antennas, not the Biot-Savart law or Coulomb's law.

Jefimenko's equations were first published in the 1960's so anything
written before then is essentially irrelevant to a discussion of antennas.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on anything
in any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

On 7/25/2012 11:55 AM, wrote:
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:11:31 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So: enters in = radiates from;?

To the extent that RF energy penetrates to a skin effect depth, the
conductor is not perfect and dissipates some of the power. All real-world
antennas dissipate some of the RF power in I^2*R (and possibly dielectric)
losses. In an efficient antenna, most of the system energy is "lost" in
space as coherent radiation.

When the free electrons in a conductor are acting as a bucket brigade for
the RF fields/waves/photons, they are essentially vibrating in place
because of their very slow drift velocity. Those I^2*R losses in the wire
are due to coherent RF photons that are absorbed by electrons and not
re-emitted as coherent RF photons but are instead converted to heat energy,
the price that Mother Nature requires be paid for all that vibration. In an
antenna that is 90% efficient, 10% of the coherent RF energy is converted
into non-coherent heat energy. That's the energy that Poynting was talking
about.

Pointing was writting in 1884. He described the DC current.
His result is caused by the assumption that the Biot-Savart law is right. Is
it?
S*

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about antennas or how they work.

You don't even understand what an antenna is or the difference between
an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field.

Electrostatic and magnetostatic fields are created by DC.

An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
teminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna
and also coverts the electromagnetic energy which antenna intercepts
into AC electrical energy at it's terminals.

That is ELECTROMAGNETIC energy, not magnetostatic nor electrostatic
energy.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law

"The Biot-Savart law is fundamental to magnetostatics, playing a similar
role to Coulomb's law in electrostatics. When magnetostatics does not
apply, the Biot-Savart law should be replaced by Jefimenko's equations."

What that means, you babbling idiot, is that Jefimenko's equations apply
to antennas, not the Biot-Savart law or Coulomb's law.

Jefimenko's equations were first published in the 1960's so anything
written before then is essentially irrelevant to a discussion of antennas.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on anything
in any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

You know better than to ask those questions of an "ignorant, babbling,
ineducable idiot".

Ian wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:
Hello Jimp.

Did you put an apostrophe in the wrong place ("it's" should be "its") or
do
we have a wild, roving electron making its presence known? :-

73, Ian.

Oh, I am forever screwing up it's/its when I'm typing fast and not
particularly thinking about what I am writting; i.e. when responding to
Polish morons and spending as little time as possible on it.

Hello Jimp. I still prefer to think of it as an electron doing its own
thing for independence.

Seems to me that most of the postings from Szczepan tend to be
copy-and-paste ones rather than "original thought" ones. I suspect he is an
old East European having a laugh at us Westerners but I wouldn't dispute the
other Ian's suggestion that we're dealing with a Turing test.

Is a moron akin to a proton?

73, Ian.

He seems pretty consistant in his inanity; I think he is coo coo for
Cocoa Puffs. (non North America readers may have to Google for meaning)