To: | towertalk@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [TowerTalk] RF Ground is not a Myth |
From: | Patrick Greenlee <patrick_g@windstream.net> |
Date: | Sun, 25 Jan 2015 07:23:57 -0600 |
List-post: | <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> |
Holy Cow!!! Welcome to Lilliput. Didn't a lot of us start out with
the water analogy to understand simple electrical circuits. In my first
formal electronics studies we used hypothetical components: pure
resistances, perfectly conducting wires, idealized capacitors and
inductors and then later had radiators over perfectly conducting planes
of infinite dimension. Different levels of detail and "reality" are
appropriate for different purposes.
So someone treats a simple wall switch as an on off device and someone else has to complain because he didn't allow for its inductance, capacitance, radiated energy, damped oscillation from the little arcing, and on and on. Sometimes a switch can be just an idealized on off device with little consequence with respect to the actions of the device that switch energized. Which end of the boiled egg do you break open, i.e. who do you support in this war of the Lilliputians? Quoting Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" We don't have to agree with one another to be civil. I, for one, learn from the interchange of ideas and technical challenges we pose to each other but lets keep it above the level of a street fight, OK? Patrick NJ5G On 1/23/2015 5:20 PM, Steve Maki wrote: I was flabbergasted at the response to Duffy's post, which seemed relatively non controversial to this relatively low level scientific brain of mine. Can't one specify a perfect ground (even though impossible in the real world) when modeling antennas? Is that not a useful exercise as an educational tool? Does that not prove his point?-Steve K8LX On 1/23/2015 4:32 PM, Wes Attaway (N5WA) wrote:"Believing in something does not make it so" .... Really?What about an isotropic radiator, defined as a theoretical point source, asused in every antenna modeling program?What about the "imaginary numbers" which consistently pop up in mathematicalanalyses?The author (Bryan Fields) was careful to point why the use of something thatis not physically realizable is still useful (even required) in certain kinds of analyses.I think he made a perfectly valid argument about why the concept of an RFGround is important, as he says "in understanding current flow in RF circuits". ------------------- Wes Attaway (N5WA) (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA Computer/Cellphone Forensics EnCase Certified Examiner ------------------- -----Original Message-----From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of BryanFields Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:52 PM To: towertalk@contesting.com Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] RF Ground is not a Myth On 1/19/15, 9:29 PM, James Duffey wrote:The RF ground is a useful theoretical construct. This theoreticalconstructis a result of solid thinking.Believing in something does not make it so.Given that it is hard to realize in practice, but it does have its use in understanding current flow in RFcircuits, the practical problems in implementing a useful ground, and whywe have problems in circuits that we don't think should have problems. Simply put, an RF ground is an infinite source or sink of carriers, delivered or received with minimal delay. That of course is notrealizable,but understanding why the carriers cannot be delivered or absorbed with minimal delay helps a great deal in understanding the practical implementation of circuits we design.Literally nothing is correct in that paragraph._______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Winsome and vertical radiator question, Bill Bennett |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] Carolina Winsome and vertical radiator question, wa3gin |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] RF Ground is not a Myth, David Gallatin via TowerTalk |
Next by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] RF Ground is not a Myth, Wes Attaway \(N5WA\) |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |