sci.physics.electromag

"Szczepan Bia³ek" < @ > wrote in message
news:fcdgt7$oon$1@ ...
>
> "Bill Miller"
>> "Szczepan Bia³ek"
>>>
>>> In "real" antennas radiation is from the ends of the OPEN circuit. How
>>> much from the broadside vs tip top it is shape dependent.
>>
>> I wonder where you are getting this idea?
>
> Circuits are rather long. In the open the last parts (end = the last part
> of something) of it work as the antena. Here the both method say the
> same.
> But what cause radiation? (compresed electrons or current)
>>
>>
>> If this antenna model is sufficiently close to your model, then can you
>> please amplify on your claim that antennas radiate off their ends?
>
> It is sufficiently close. I try to be precise. My claim is that OPEN
> CIRCUITS radiate off their ends (called antenas).
> Closed circuits also radiated something.

If by your definition, the open circuits are the "wires" that stick up in
the air, then we are in agreement. So far...

But this is only a partial explanation by example, since LOOP antennas also
radiate nicely, and these are -- by definition -- CLOSED CIRCUITS. In
addition, there is a third class (sort of) that can be represented by
devices like the folded dipole. In this configuration, at the dipole ends,
the "wire" doubles back toward the center -- spaced a short distance from
the "outbound wire. If we do this at both ends, the doubled back wires meet
at the centre, and there is now a CLOSED CIRCUIT. But this antenna also
radiates with high efficiency and with a pattern that is essentially
identical to that of a concentional dipole.


>>
>> This might be correct if the antenna consisted entirely of a ball fed
>> with very high voltage radio frequency energy.
>
> Electrons are compressed in the last part of the OPEN CIRCUIT. Also in
> the last part of the thin wire fed with very high voltage radio
> frequency energy.

Please explain your source for this idea.

>
>>>In your field method the stronger current the stronger signal. Could you
>>>comment this?
>
>> It is empirically true. But why it is empirically true is still a
>> mystery.
>
> Empirically because for the charge method no math.

OK We have been building antennas for well over a century. Where's the math!

>> We understand that the acceleration of electrons is accompanied by
>> radiation.
>
> Here is important to know which acceleration. If at the braking only it
> can means that it is effect of compression.

Once again, what is your source for this claim of "compressed" electrons.

>> But this acceleration of electrons does not appear to be the mechanism by
>> which antennas radiate. Instead, the metal conductors seem to be
>> "guiding" the radio frequency signals along a path that encourages
>> radiation. The electrons in the metal seem to have nothing to do with the
>> actual radiation process. (An exception MAY be the "high voltage ball"
>> antenna that my friend built. I hope to build one
>
> Try different shape (of the last part of open circuits) - all should be
> blunt.
>
>>myself and learn more.)
>>
>> I wish I could comment further. I wish *anybody* could!
>
> Me too.
> S*
>
Welcome to one of the last unexplained areas of EM!

Bill