General > General Technical Chat
How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?
TimFox:
My experience with enameled copper wire ("magnet wire") is that the insulating coating is in "intimate contact" with the metal.
How thick a hypothetical air layer do you think would be important, if the enamel is, say, 0.001 in = 0.025 mm thick on an AWG 18 = 1 mm diam. Cu wire?
This is a typical magnet wire spec, and doesn't leave a whole lot of space for air.
If you need a thicker insulation for your experiment, you could strip the shield braid from a length of normal coaxial cable and compare it against an equal length of the same gauge of bare wire (specified in the data sheet for the coax, note that many solid-conductor coax cables use CopperweldTM copper-coated steel wire for mechanical strength and use at high frequencies where the skin depth in the copper layer is sufficient).
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on February 07, 2023, 12:28:06 am ---My experience with enameled copper wire ("magnet wire") is that the insulating coating is in "intimate contact" with the metal.
How thick a hypothetical air layer do you think would be important, if the enamel is, say, 0.001 in = 0.025 mm thick on an AWG 18 = 1 mm diam. Cu wire?
This is a typical magnet wire spec, and doesn't leave a whole lot of space for air.
If you need a thicker insulation for your experiment, you could strip the shield braid from a length of normal coaxial cable and compare it against an equal length of the same gauge of bare wire (specified in the data sheet for the coax, note that many solid-conductor coax cables use CopperweldTM copper-coated steel wire for mechanical strength and use at high frequencies where the skin depth in the copper layer is sufficient).
--- End quote ---
If i had a scope i would test bare Cu – then again after one thin coat of enamel – then with one more coat, 2 coats – then with 3 coats etc. – to try to see if there is a critical depth of enamel.
A critical depth relating to the needed insulation in a say magnet or motor might be a different animal & might have no relationship to critical depth for speed of electricity.
Today i measured the speed of electricity in Tony Wakefield's X where he used 18 m of coax shorted at one end, as a capacitor (9V battery) -- & his 350 MHz HP scope showed delays at ¼ points which gave me speeds of 0.98c, 0.95c, 0.96c & 0.96c – for a 75 ohm air-spaced polythylene (probly meant polyethylene) dielectric.
Alphaphoenix-1 had i think heavy enameled Cu – but he did not mention an accurate length of Cu (hence a speed could not be calculated).
Alphaphoenix-2 (where he measured speed of electricity in water) had an accurate L, & used enameled Cu, but the speed for zero water was reportedly 3c/3 when it should have been 2c/3 – a bit suspicious i reckon.
Howard Long on this forum did a measurement of speed using a 20GHz scope – but he failed to tell us his measured delay (for 4ft of ladder antenna wire)(ie 8ft reflecting).
And, as i have said before, measuring the speed of electricity along a threaded rod would prove or disprove my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY – the delay should be lots slower due to the extra distance upndown over the threads.
CatalinaWOW:
In the last few responses we see clearly what is wrong with Electon theory. There is no measured data supporting the conclusions. And the theory does not allow prediction of the performance of even simple configurations like coaxial cable.
There are several tests of a theory.
1. Does it qualitatively predict behavior of the world? Electon theory may do that. I haven't spent enough time to be sure, but I will tentatively take Aetherist at his word.
2. Does it make quantitative and correct predictions about behavior of the world? TimFox, and most of the rest of the world knows that it does not, at least in the form presented.
3. Does it simplify understanding of the world, particularly in a quantitative way? Definitely not. If it did several people here would be saying aha! But the only thing that has happened along those lines is Aetherist saying that explanations for phenomena based on classical (wave theory & quantum theory) are over his head (or eschatological statements that they are wrong with no supporting evidence).
4. Does it explain things that are unexplained by other theories? No, not unless you don't understand the other theories, in which case any explanation is solving the unexplained.
Electon theory does poorly on tests 2 through 4, and may barely pass test 1. Not a winner when existing theories have passed all four tests.
Smokey:
--- Quote from: Rick Law on February 07, 2017, 09:52:18 pm ---...
Absolutely! Electronics is a macro concept. Quantum mechanics in general doesn't come into play.
...
--- End quote ---
Bandgap reference? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandgap_voltage_reference
aetherist:
quote CatalinaWOW.....
In the last few responses we see clearly what is wrong with Electon theory. There is no measured data supporting the conclusions. And the theory does not allow prediction of the performance of even simple configurations like coaxial cable.
It is well known that the speed of electricity on insulated Cu is 2c/3 – but i have not got a link to any actual tests.
There are several tests of a theory.
1. Does it qualitatively predict behavior of the world? Electon theory may do that. I haven't spent enough time to be sure, but I will tentatively take Aetherist at his word.
...................Measuring the speed of electricity on an insulated wire would do the trick.
And then measuring the speed of electricity on a threaded rod would be the ultimate test.
2. Does it make quantitative and correct predictions about behavior of the world? TimFox, and most of the rest of the world knows that it does not, at least in the form presented.
...............There are at least 10 versions of electron electricity – yet i don’t know of any person dissecting each ovem in relation to whether they qualify as according with standard prediction theory & models.
Some versions will accord, some won't. They vary from the energy current being in the space around a wire, to the energy current being in the drifting electrons. We have the Faraday version -- Heaviside version – Maxwell version – Veritasium (Derek) version – William Beatty version – Alphaphoenix (Brian) version – Electroboom (Mehdi) version – EEV (David) version – RSD Academy (Bob) version – The Science Asylum (Nick) version – etc. They are all slightly or a lot different.
My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY version accords in some ways with all of the "energy is in the field(s) crowd", ie the present standard model.
But CatalinaWOW says that most of the world knows that my version duznt make quantitative & correct predictions.
I have already explained that all of the other versions fail the first test – the speed of electricity/elekticity on an insulated Cu.
3. Does it simplify understanding of the world, particularly in a quantitative way? Definitely not. If it did several people here would be saying aha! But the only thing that has happened along those lines is Aetherist saying that explanations for phenomena based on classical (wave theory & quantum theory) are over his head (or eschatological statements that they are wrong with no supporting evidence).
................My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY has a simple explanation for lots of things.
(a) [Elektrons orbit in atoms] Hence for a battery circuit we have ELEKTRONS jumping off battery chemical atoms onto the surface of the negative terminal [where the ELEKTONS give ELEKTICITY] -- & then onto the surface of the Cu -- & later jumping off the Cu onto the surface of the positive terminal -- & then (a) onto the battery chemical atoms -- & then the atoms carrying the ELEKTRONS migrate to the negative terminal (in some batterys).
(c ) Re (a). Rubbing some materials physically knocks the ELEKTRONS orbiting in atoms off the atom, at which time the ELEKTRON forms a closed loop (d), which forms what i call a free electron (ie a free charged particle)(on a surface)(static electricity), which when the electron moves gives us true electron electricity (a slow version of my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY.
4. Does it explain things that are unexplained by other theories? No, not unless you don't understand the other theories, in which case any explanation is solving the unexplained.
ELEKTRIC ATOMS solve the question of exactly how do atoms absorb photons.
Electon theory does poorly on tests 2 through 4, and may barely pass test 1. Not a winner when existing theories have passed all four tests.[/quote]
...............ELEKTONS & ELEKTON ELEKTICITY & ELEKTRIC ATOMS & EM RADIO hit every pitch out of the park.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version