General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (273/396) > >>
SandyCox:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 09:14:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 25, 2022, 03:13:05 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 12:32:50 pm ---I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf
--- End quote ---
There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
--- End quote ---
There is always a difference tween a transmitting antenna & a receiving antenna. It is usually 100 km or 1000 km or more. If there is very little difference, say 1 km, then the antennas can be old cans of Bud Light (355 mL).

U say it makes no difference whether it is a transmitting antenna or a receiving antenna. I do see 4 differences.
IS IS………………  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is affected by rain.
IS AINT……….…  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is not affected.
AINT IS……….….  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is affected.
AINT AINT……...  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is not affected.

--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 25, 2022, 03:13:05 pm ---Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.
--- End quote ---
I am very interested in exactly why an insulated antenna acts differently when wet.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.

--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 25, 2022, 03:13:05 pm ---You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?
--- End quote ---
I don’t think that antenna designers or users have conspired to cover up Einsteinian problems.

I am looking for antenna instances where drifting electrons give a better explanation than my electons.
And where my electons give a better explanation.
And where both work ok.
And where both don’t work.
And i suspect that these instances might be more apparent if we introduce insulation on the wires.
And perhaps wet antennas can tell us something worthwhile.

Antenna designers & users have no idea what i am talking about, ie my electons.
And antenna designers & users have no idea that their precious radio waves are not photons.
And that photons are not radio waves.
But ignorance & misconceptions do not appear to have resulted in them wasting their time. But mightbe it has.
They might be thrilled to hear of my electons. And my explanation for radio waves.

Funny. At a family reunion some years ago i had a nice argument with one of my relatives re electricity & re radio waves. He has written a number of books re design & wiring of radio stuff. Anyhow i heard that he got cleaned up by a runaway trailer whilst cleaning the roadside with his club, & that he has brain damage. I doubt that i will have a chance to ask him what he thinks about my electons.

--- End quote ---

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. I'm not fluent in gibberish.

What does your new theory say about a dipole antenna. What does its radiation pattern look like? For a transmitting and receiving dipole?

Can you point us to some of the books your relative wrote. What exactly happened to him?
daqq:

--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 09:14:22 pm ---I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.
--- End quote ---
Then get a VNA and do those measurements. You can get good ones for a few thousand USD. Or you can use something like the nanoVNA, though I'm not sure of the parameters.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 26, 2022, 01:34:17 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 09:14:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 25, 2022, 03:13:05 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 12:32:50 pm ---I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf
--- End quote ---
There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
--- End quote ---
There is always a difference tween a transmitting antenna & a receiving antenna. It is usually 100 km or 1000 km or more. If there is very little difference, say 1 km, then the antennas can be old cans of Bud Light (355 mL).

U say it makes no difference whether it is a transmitting antenna or a receiving antenna. I do see 4 differences.
IS IS………………  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is affected by rain.
IS AINT……….…  The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is not affected.
AINT IS……….….  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is affected.
AINT AINT……...  The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is not affected.

--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 25, 2022, 03:13:05 pm ---Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.
--- End quote ---
I am very interested in exactly why an insulated antenna acts differently when wet.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.

--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 25, 2022, 03:13:05 pm ---You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?
--- End quote ---
I don’t think that antenna designers or users have conspired to cover up Einsteinian problems.

I am looking for antenna instances where drifting electrons give a better explanation than my electons.
And where my electons give a better explanation.
And where both work ok.
And where both don’t work.
And i suspect that these instances might be more apparent if we introduce insulation on the wires.
And perhaps wet antennas can tell us something worthwhile.

Antenna designers & users have no idea what i am talking about, ie my electons.
And antenna designers & users have no idea that their precious radio waves are not photons.
And that photons are not radio waves.
But ignorance & misconceptions do not appear to have resulted in them wasting their time. But mightbe it has.
They might be thrilled to hear of my electons. And my explanation for radio waves.

Funny. At a family reunion some years ago i had a nice argument with one of my relatives re electricity & re radio waves. He has written a number of books re design & wiring of radio stuff. Anyhow i heard that he got cleaned up by a runaway trailer whilst cleaning the roadside with his club, & that he has brain damage. I doubt that i will have a chance to ask him what he thinks about my electons.

--- End quote ---
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. I'm not fluent in gibberish.
--- End quote ---

I suspect that the insulation or wetness problem with antennas arises mainly in the IS/AINT  & the AINT/IS  configurations, not so much in the  IS/IS  & the  AINT/AINT  configurations.

gibberish  /ˈdʒɪb(ə)rɪʃ/   Learn to pronounce      noun      unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.  "he talks gibberish"

gibber1  /ˈdʒɪbə/    verb   speak rapidly and unintelligibly, typically through fear or shock.    "they shrieked and gibbered as flames surrounded them"

gibber desert…..    The terms 'stony downs' or 'gibber plains' are used to describe desert pavement in Australia. ... It is a desert surface covered with closely packed, interlocking angular or rounded rock fragments of pebble and cobble size

gibber…..     rock- and pebble-littered area of arid or semi-arid country in Australia. The rocks are generally angular fragments formed from broken up duricrust, usually silcrete, a hardened crust of soil cemented by silica (SiO2). The gravel cover may be only one rock fragment deep, or it may consist of several layers buried in fine-grained material that is thought to have been blown in. A gibber is generally considered a result of mechanical weathering because silica is almost inert to chemical weathering.

--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 26, 2022, 01:34:17 pm ---What does your new theory say about a dipole antenna. What does its radiation pattern look like? For a transmitting and receiving dipole?
--- End quote ---

I think that an insulated dipole or a wet dipole would in effect have a shorter L. And i suspect that that would lower its effective frequencies. This might lower the antenna's happy frequency by the ratio of the speed of light in air to the speed of light in water or to the speed of light in plastic.

I am not sure whether "happy frequency" is a valid technical term, but it should be. We might have the Happiness of an antenna (units needed here). The inverse could be called Haplessness.

adx said that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %, not the 0.67 to 1.00 ratio that my electons suggest. But, adx should have been referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers.

--- Quote from: SandyCox on February 26, 2022, 01:34:17 pm ---Can you point us to some of the books your relative wrote. What exactly happened to him?
--- End quote ---
I emailed Tony Wakefield (he has been mentioned in this thread), he is a ham & lives in Melbourne too & might know of Diamond & his books.

Diamond was with his club cleaning rubbish from the center median of a dual highway in Melbourne when a say builder's trailer came off & hit him, he didn’t see it coming, he was in hospital for months, had brain damage, was in the same ward as my wife (his cousin) who died of brain cancer, & they didn’t know that the other was there. I don’t know how he is nowadays. I remember him telling me that his favorit person was Faraday. I think i argued with him that electricity was not due to electron drift, & i might have argued with him that radio waves were not photons, & i might have mentioned the aetherwind affecting the speed of radio waves, it was about 6 years ago, i didn’t yet have my new (electon) electricity theory back then.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: daqq on February 26, 2022, 03:55:24 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 25, 2022, 09:14:22 pm ---I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.
--- End quote ---
Then get a VNA and do those measurements. You can get good ones for a few thousand USD. Or you can use something like the nanoVNA, though I'm not sure of the parameters.

--- End quote ---
I dont know the difference tween a VNA & an oscilloscope. But i would keep clear of radio antenna stuff i think -- too complicated. However Veritasium's gedanken & AlphaPhoenix's X involve a kind of radio effect.
I wish i had Howardlong's 20 GHz scope. I would do screw-thread tests for sure. Even an amateur like me wouldnt go far wrong. Even AlphaPhoenix could do it i reckon (hmmm prapsknot).
I contacted my local university re a screw-thread test but they have not answered.
HuronKing:
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod