Re: Wire Length (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Gerry Reynolds <greynolds@xxxxxxxxxx>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:44:28 -0700
From: Gary Peterson <g.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Wire Length (fwd)

>> Care to cite some references regarding the source of the
>> various "it is known" statements re: INTERNAL RF noise
>> in antennas?  Is this related to something other than the
>> intrinsic thermal noise due to the finite RF resistance of
>> the conductors?
>> Ed

> Are we talking about Tesla coils here, or that 'radio theory'
> that Tesla said was the wrong way to go?   It's really hard
> to talk about apples when oranges is the subject.
>  Mike

Yes, we are talking about Tesla coils, but keep in mind that we are 
responding to Bart's TC-related question, "what is wrong with the current 
laws of physics and what is new?"  The fact of the matter is that the system 
we call "radio" is where much of our practical experience lies.  If we can 
understand more precisely the various phenomena related to the operation of 
radio transmitters, transmission lines, antennas, and radio receivers, then 
this knowledge can be carried over into other areas, including the operation 
of Tesla coils, no matter the intended application.

>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:27 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Wire Length (fwd)
>>>
>>> Consider this proposition:
>>> There are differences between the wave equation according to
>>> Laplace and the wave equation according to Maxwell which
>>> result in an inconsistency.  In the Laplace equation Maxwell's
>>> damping term is missing while the divergence E factor does
>>> appear.  From the comparison of coefficients of both wave
>>> descriptions, mathematically, Maxwell's damping term can be
>>> seen to correspond to Laplace's divergence E factor.
>>>
>>> In the physical example of a radio antenna, induced eddy
>>> currents in the conductor are known to be associated with
>>> broad-band RF noise.  As long as the wave equation
>>> according to Laplace is used while adhering to Maxwell's
>>> theory at the same time, this can be easily explained.  The
>>> problem arises in the way that Maxwell's equations alone
>>> handle the E-field in the dielectric or air directly adjacent to the
>>> circulating eddy currents.  While the motion of the eddy
>>>currents is described as being rotational, the associated
>>> E-field is not described by Maxwell as being rotational.  A
>>> contradiction arises because the antenna noise exists in the
>>> region adjacent to the conductor, but if the Maxwell
>>> description is applied, then the antenna noise cannot exist.
>>> This contradicts actual experience, since measurements
>>> show that all antennas do produce some noise.
>>>
>>> Maxwell's equations dictate that as the reason for wave
>>> damping only E-field vortices should be considered, but  the
>>> equations just describe the eddy currents that occur in the
>>> electrically conducting parts of the antenna.
>>>
>>> In regards to divergence phenomena in dielectrics:
>>> 1. Noise is factored out of the Maxwell-derived field theory.
>>> 2. The noise part in the wave equation has to be put to zero
>>> (div E = 0).
>>> 3. The wave descriptions according to Maxwell and according
>>> to Laplace are inconsistent and contradictory
>>> 4. The dielectric losses of an antenna cannot be found
>>> physically nor calculated with the Maxwell-derived wave
>>> equation.
>>> 5. Also the dielectric losses of a capacitor are not identified as
>>> eddy current losses.  (The present interpretation is that these
>>> losses are the result of defects in the insulating material).
>>> 6. That capacitor losses correspond to a generated noise
>>> power is not identified.
>>> 7. The dielectric constant  E (epsilon) has to be written down
>>> in a complex form to explain the occurring losses, resulting
>>> in an inner contradiction that is hidden in a complex constant.
>>>
>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>> Gary Peterson,
>>> after Konstantin Meyl, et al