vacuodynamic Posted September 25, 2009 Author Posted September 25, 2009 The total energy is conserved. There is no way this cannot be the case. Without knowing the precise set up and spending a few days modelling it I can't tell you where the energy is, but I can tell you it is conserved. Dear Klaynos, You need not to re-model it again; it was done (and used for communication engineers) in the two telecommunication text books (Richard C Johnson, Henry Jasik, “Antenna Applications Reference Guide”, and John D. Ryder, “Network, Lines and Fields”) in which I have used it as referenced in my paper. Would you please study it first before making any further discussion? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
Klaynos Posted September 25, 2009 Posted September 25, 2009 Could you describe it here, sifting through your site to find what your talking about seems to be annoying, or at least give a page reference, so even if I found the books I've some hope of finding what you're talking about? Forgive me for not trusting models where no details are provided other than your say of what is happening. There is no field profile where the (integrated energy density + absorption)/input energy is not 1. If this was not the case there would be a fundamental flaw in everything, and experimentation tells us that is not correct. Your are either mistake (the energy is in other modes or similar) or confused about what the texts are saying.
vacuodynamic Posted September 28, 2009 Author Posted September 28, 2009 Could you describe it here, sifting through your site to find what your talking about seems to be annoying, or at least give a page reference, so even if I found the books I've some hope of finding what you're talking about? Forgive me for not trusting models where no details are provided other than your say of what is happening. There is no field profile where the (integrated energy density + absorption)/input energy is not 1. If this was not the case there would be a fundamental flaw in everything, and experimentation tells us that is not correct. Your are either mistake (the energy is in other modes or similar) or confused about what the texts are saying. Dear Klaynos, Below is the involved part (p.6-7) of the paper VMTE in my website which you can easily download its pdf file there. …………………………………………… The third experiment is a more practical one; it is involved electromagnetic field energy of VHF radio system. It is a normal way for sending VHF radio signal to a desired direction. The system consists of a two-element directional antenna as shown as in figure below. Two half-wave dipole antennas are placing side by side with spacing of one fourth of the radio wavelength apart To operate the antenna system, two sinusoidal electromagnetic signal currents with opposite phase are fed into each of the antennas simultaneously. Then the total power density pattern of the radiated radio waves (calculated from the formula shown) was created as shown in diagram in the figure 3. Note, actually the total power density pattern is 3-Dimesion but only 2-Dimension is shown. It is an apple shape pattern in which the concave part (right hand side) point to the desired direction Next let us do the experiment, if both antennas are moved close together while the feeding currents keep fixed. The power density pattern will be decreased, the more closing of the antennas the more decreasing of power density pattern in the figure (n=1/4 is biggest, n=1/8 is smaller and n=1/12 is smallest). According to the theory and the formula, when both antennas are at the same position, the size of the power pattern will reduce to zero. Now the question is where is the radiation energy of the radio wave gone? Someone may say that it is obviously a simple destructive interference phenomenon of waves. Yes, it is, but that will violate the law of conservation of energy. (We have kept the same input energy but the output energy is decreased.) The only possible explanation to the question is that; there is the cancellation of the opposite phase in the internal stress of vacuum medium. Figure 3 Radio radiation patterns of a two half-wave antennas & the formula. …………………………………………………………………………… By the way, detail explanation, calculation and the relevant diagram could be found in the referenced text books, i. e. [9] John D. Ryder, “Network, Lines and Fields” Second Edition, p. 553-555. And [10] Editors: Richard C Johnson, Henry Jasik, “Antenna Applications Reference Guide”, p. 2-13 to 2-15. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 According to the theory and the formula, when both antennas are at the same position, the size of the power pattern will reduce to zero. Now the question is where is the radiation energy of the radio wave gone? Someone may say that it is obviously a simple destructive interference phenomenon of waves. Yes, it is, but that will violate the law of conservation of energy. (We have kept the same input energy but the output energy is decreased.) The only possible explanation to the question is that; there is the cancellation of the opposite phase in the internal stress of vacuum medium. Either there is constructive interference elsewhere, or the input energy is not actually the same.
Klaynos Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 I second swansont's point, the constructive interference may well be out of plane, there is no problem with energy conservation here.
vacuodynamic Posted September 30, 2009 Author Posted September 30, 2009 Either there is constructive interference elsewhere, Dear swansont, Where is the “elsewhere”? or the input energy is not actually the same. It was said that “the input energy was kept constant”, what else do you mean? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI second swansont's point, the constructive interference may well be out of plane, Dear Klaynos, Could you please show me the mathematical formula which give the result you mentioned? there is no problem with energy conservation here. How it is be so? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Dear swansont, Where is the “elsewhere”? It was said that “the input energy was kept constant”, what else do you mean? Elsewhere is someplace other than where you are observing the destructive interference. Real implementations of theory usually have some deviation from the ideal, e.g. you can discuss interference of plane waves, but you can't actually make plane waves, so the real result will be different. I suspect something similar would occur here. What do you mean "it was said?" YOU said it — it's your paper! Did you actually DO the experiment, or did you just calculate from the formula?
vacuodynamic Posted October 3, 2009 Author Posted October 3, 2009 Elsewhere is someplace other than where you are observing the destructive interference. Real implementations of theory usually have some deviation from the ideal, e.g. you can discuss interference of plane waves, but you can't actually make plane waves, so the real result will be different. I suspect something similar would occur here. Dear swansont, It seems as if you were not ever involved in any physics laboratory measurement class for verify what you have learned in the theory. Any actual practical measurement is of course having some small deviation from theory, but it is not the main part which will defy the theory, isn't it? What do you mean "it was said?" YOU said it — it's your paper! It was said in the mentioned referent text books (I just learned from them)! Did you actually DO the experiment, or did you just calculate from the formula? It is not only DO the experiment, but I have worked with it for thirty year in radio communication engineering! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Dear swansont, It seems as if you were not ever involved in any physics laboratory measurement class for verify what you have learned in the theory. Any actual practical measurement is of course having some small deviation from theory, but it is not the main part which will defy the theory, isn't it? It was said in the mentioned referent text books (I just learned from them)! It is not only DO the experiment, but I have worked with it for thirty year in radio communication engineering! I'm having a hard time reconciling "I just read this in a textbook" and "I've been doing this professionally for 30 years" Does the power draw change when you change the load on a system? If you've done the experiment, let's see the data.
Peron Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 All right I read some of your papers, vacuodynamic, and found something very wrong with the theory. IN (a) WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT "ELECTRON WAVE" IS, WHILE IN (b) WE KNOW THAT IT IS "WAVE OF VACUUM MEDIUM" CREATED BY DISTURBANCE OF THE MOVING ELECTRON! If a single Electron can create such a disturbance through the vacuum medium, then that means protons can and all matter can. Stars would definitely effect the medium. Why don't we detect these waves? Binary stars would disturb this medium on a enormous scale, causing all sorts of problems, we would have earthquakes in space!
vacuodynamic Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 I'm having a hard time reconciling "I just read this in a textbook" and "I've been doing this professionally for 30 years". Dear swansont, I am a former electrical - communication engineer who have worked thirty years in the field of radio communication engineering. VHF radio directional broadcasting system is a kind of radio communication which I have worked with, and it is also “what was talking about in my paper”. To work with VHF radio directional broadcasting system, I have followed the mentioned reference books. Also these reference books which I used to write my paper! Does the power draw change when you change the load on a system? It seems that you are not familiar with radio communication system, are you? In the VHF radio directional system, two have-wave dipole antennas were used. Each antenna has it own constant impedance which act as load of the system, how could the “load” change? If you've done the experiment, let's see the data. I have not necessary to kept all my working data for thirty years long! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
JillSwift Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I have not necessary to kept all my working data for thirty years long! Well, that's one major difference between engineering and science, hmm? No data, no leg to stand on.
swansont Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 At this point I refer you back to D H's posts where he asks you to read up on transformers.
vacuodynamic Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 All right I read some of your papers, vacuodynamic, and found something very wrong with the theory. If a single Electron can create such a disturbance through the vacuum medium, then that means protons can and all matter can. Stars would definitely effect the medium. Why don't we detect these waves? Binary stars would disturb this medium on a enormous scale, causing all sorts of problems, we would have earthquakes in space! Dear Peron, May be it is not quite appropriate to talk about quantum mechanics here, and I have look forward to talk about it in its own forum soon! Actually, your question could be found after reading all part of the paper “completed quantum mechanical theory”. Anyway, I will reply it in short as follow; All atomic particles such proton, neutron, atoms etc. could disturb vacuum medium and creating wave if they are moving fast enough! But in practice only electron which we can speed it up fast enough to create the “co-moving” electron wave such as in electron microscope. For small particle such as dust particle or gun bullet up to a big object such as star could not create their “co-moving” wave because their normal moving speed is not fast compare to electron speed! Now come to the question - why we could not detect the “co-moving” (electron) wave? Actually we can not directly detect the wave with two reasons. First, the “co-moving” wave is “velocity” wave, so it can not radiate; only “accelerate” wave could radiate (please remember that electromagnetic wave was created by oscillating electrons). Second, the “co-moving” (electron) wave energy is very tiny compare to electron energy, so it is very difficult to detect it. For binary stars, because of their high rotation speed, and because both star circulate each other, then oscillating wave was created and radiate away. Indeed, the radiating wave was detect as the famous prove of gravity wave predict by Einstein general theory of relativity! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAt this point I refer you back to D H's posts where he asks you to read up on transformers. Dear swansont, The action of transformer was arisen “only” from alternating current. And because alternating current creates changing magnetic flux, then the induced magnetic flux is the origin of what we called mutual inductance. There is NO mutual inductance in direct current circuit (except in transient state)! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Dear swansont, The action of transformer was arisen “only” from alternating current. And because alternating current creates changing magnetic flux, then the induced magnetic flux is the origin of what we called mutual inductance. There is NO mutual inductance in direct current circuit (except in transient state)! Am I to understand that you are proposing that "electromagnetic field energy of VHF radio system" is DC?
vacuodynamic Posted October 8, 2009 Author Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) Am I to understand that you are proposing that "electromagnetic field energy of VHF radio system" is DC? Dear swansont, How could you understand for something like that? May be because I misunderstood that your former post is about what D.H. had talking in his post #44 in which he point out that “the experiment with two solenoids I referred to may came with mutual inductance”, and if this is not what you are asking, please explain it again? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Edited October 8, 2009 by vacuodynamic
swansont Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 You are (or appear to be) simultaneously claiming that your effect is seen (or should be seen) in an RF EM signal, and that you can ignore mutual inductance because it is not a DC effect.
vacuodynamic Posted October 8, 2009 Author Posted October 8, 2009 You are (or appear to be) simultaneously claiming that your effect is seen (or should be seen) in an RF EM signal, and that you can ignore mutual inductance because it is not a DC effect. Dear swansont, In the two-solenoid experiment, there is NO mutual inductance in solenoid circuit with direct current! In VHF directional radio transmission system, there is NO mutual inductance because antenna is not a solenoid (in structure)! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Dear swansont, In the two-solenoid experiment, there is NO mutual inductance in solenoid circuit with direct current! In VHF directional radio transmission system, there is NO mutual inductance because antenna is not a solenoid (in structure)! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com You spent 30 years in the field and don't recognize the similarities between a solenoid an an antenna? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)#Mutual_impedance_and_interaction_between_antennas
vacuodynamic Posted October 9, 2009 Author Posted October 9, 2009 You spent 30 years in the field and don't recognize the similarities between a solenoid an an antenna? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)#Mutual_impedance_and_interaction_between_antennas Dear swansont, It seems that you think that you know about the similar between the antenna and the solenoid better than me! Would you please tell me some? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .
swansont Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Are you unable to click on the link I provided?
vacuodynamic Posted October 9, 2009 Author Posted October 9, 2009 Are you unable to click on the link I provided? Dear swansont, Sorry, at first I think that you are not familiar with radio communication, so I try simplifying the discussion with you by referenced to John D. Ryder, “Network, Lines and Fields” (second edition, p. 553-555.) text book. Now, it seems that you want to go deeper, then let us discuss in more detail, i.e. including the effect of mutual inductance! Refer to the VHF directional radio system with two dipole antennas, (in which I have used as the experiment in my paper) which followed from the explanation “Antenna Applications Reference Guide” by Richard C Johnson, Henry Jasik, (p. 2-13 to 2-15.) text book. And in this text book, mutual inductance was included! According to the second text book, it has shown that the “power density pattern” of the radiation signal, wills gradually reducing while antenna spacing is decreasing. The reducing of radiation power consists of two parts; the first part is according to the ideal mathematical formula, while the second part was due to the mismatch of the impedance between source and antenna (i.e. the effect of mutual inductance). And it is not difficult to calculate both the two part of the reducing of radiation power. Please note that important point of the first part of the reducing power of radiation is that it was due to destructive interference of radio signal from both antennas is always exist whether the second part (mutual inductance effect) is included or not! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .
swansont Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Please note that important point of the first part of the reducing power of radiation is that it was due to destructive interference of radio signal from both antennas is always exist whether the second part (mutual inductance effect) is included or not! But as this is a calculation, all one can conclude is that you can do a calculation incorrectly by not including all relevant terms.
vacuodynamic Posted October 12, 2009 Author Posted October 12, 2009 But as this is a calculation, all one can conclude is that you can do a calculation incorrectly by not including all relevant terms. Dear swansont, You are right, for someone who are not familiar with radio communication but know that an antenna could be affect by other one near by, may conclude that I am cheating! One reason that I first talking without mutual inductance effect because its effect is a minor part of the total power. It is something like what you have talked in the first point of # 57. Actually, for someone who study the most precise calculation in radio radiation system would found more complicate thing such as what was called as “near field” zone around the antenna. But, actually what radio engineers make used from radio radiation system is as what was called as “far field” radiation zone and it is this field is what we involved in our experiment! By the way, in my paper I have talking about the two-solenoid experiment first because it is simple and obvious for any physicist and this second experiment was included in order to show that we could also play with electromagnetic field! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .
Klaynos Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 To have a good understanding of the energy conservation you need to integrate the field density over all space... For this you need to take into account both the near and far field. My research is closely related to antenna, and part of the research group I'm in deals with them in great depth. There is nothing new or interesting here.
Recommended Posts