Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Old May 6th 10, 09:25 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 707
Default What exactly is radio


"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 5, 8:52 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Wiki wrote: "The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric
field

and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary
charges,
and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); "


an electric field can also be created by a changing magnetic field...

and a magnetic field by a changing electric field... no charges
needed.

In Maxwell's displacement current were charges (electricity).
In the space no charged bodies.

But what produce very slow charge?


a charge is a charge, it can neither be created nor destroyed.... well

except maybe by matter-anti-matter annihilation. charged particles
can move at any speed from 0 to c, nothing special about speeds.

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce the
electric field. Why not?

Next Wiki weote: "From a classical perspective, the electromagnetic field

can be regarded as a smooth, continuous field, propagated in a wavelike
manner ;"

It is important to know that Maxwell's waves are rotational (oscillating

magnetic whirl).


no they aren't... at least not all of them. maxwells equations are

just as well satisfied by linearly polarized (magnetic AND electric
field) waves.

Maxwell's waves are transversal. It means that something oscillate around
the axis of rotation.
Linear polarization means thet the rotating oscillations are in the one
plane.

Alternate electric field also propagate in a wavelike manner. But here to

and fro (no rotations).


if the magnetic field is rotating then the electric field also

rotates. they always go together.

In Maxwell's Hypothesis.

The fundamental question: Are radio waves a simple electric waves or the
very sophisticated Maxwell's waves?


ALL radio waves can be described by maxwell's equations, both simple

linear polarized ones and circularly polarized ones.

Wiki wrote: " FM radio
The term "circular polarization" is often used erroneously to describe mixed
polarity signals used mostly in FM radio (87.5 to 108.0 MHz), where a
vertical and a horizontal component are propagated simultaneously by a
single or a combined array."

It seems that radio waves are the electric waves.
If yes, the light is also longitudinal.
S*


  #42   Report Post  
Old May 6th 10, 09:45 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 707
Default What exactly is radio


"Art Unwin" wrote
...

The fundamental question: Are radio waves a simple electric waves or
the
very sophisticated Maxwell's waves?


ALL radio waves can be described by maxwell's equations, both simple
linear polarized ones and circularly polarized ones.


The fundamental question is really how can we describe this "wave".? A
wave of what "water",
A wave of "water" traveling towards a beach.
Is it water we are really trying to describe or what?
Water has a "skin" on its surface , a skin that encasulates it like a
bag , container or a boundary!


Water waves are described by Stokes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift


Nothing is clear when describing a "wave" with respect to physics, as
it is just a "F" word to substitute an unexplainable in a psuedo
description
There is no agreement what so ever as to what a "wave" is so there
cannot exist a description of what radio "IS", "IS"!. Physicists
acknowledge that radio is some thing that is unexplanable leaving just
hams to fill in the unexplainable about radio and to deny the
explanations made by others.
What we do have is a string of mathematical equations all of which
interlock which are a result
of observation and seamingly reasonable deductions. Maxwell deduced b
y examination of units used that a portion of his formula was also a
mathematical explanation of elevation and acceleration but no
description of what!


Maxwell did it. Maxwell described it in English. The equations wrote
Heaviside.

A physicists
named Gauss who provided a lot of Maxwells tools
used Newtons laws to establish boundary laws where it can be seen that
mathematically a clump of static particles in equilibrium could be
made
dynamic by adding a time varying field while retaining equilibrium
meshes with Maxwells equations on radiation. So who on earth descided
to interject "waves" into the discussion and why?


The dynamic particles are waves. The Gauss time varying field is the
longitudinal wave.

And what experiment was performed that dictated its inclusion in the
subject of radio or radiation that has put a screaming halt to a
sustainable explanation of same for more than a hundred years
where other dreams have come to fruition by utelizing the human brain.
Is it the ham population
that is responsible for the lack of advances in the advancement of
science by denying the inclusion of particles as the basic matter
involved in elevation and acceleration (displacement) as implied by
Maxwell's equations, preferring instead to use 'water' and 'waves' to
describe the science to the non initiated.


The water and waves are usefull in schools. Everybody can see.
Light, radio waves and sound waves are analogous in the all details.
Sound waves and radio waves are not visible but many experiment was done.
S*



  #43   Report Post  
Old May 6th 10, 11:03 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 484
Default What exactly is radio

On May 6, 8:25*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

you mangled the replies so badly that i couldn't even follow what you
were saying. light and radio waves are the same thing, as are gamma,
infra red, x-ray, etc... all the exact same phenomena explained very
well by maxwell's equations. scientists for 100 years have been
unable to come up with anything better, you aren't going to by your
misguided assertions that have no mathematics or experimental evidence
behind them.

sound waves and water waves are VERY different things. while some of
the equations take the same form because they share sinusoidal
repetition properties, the underlying physics is VERY different. you
have to abandon the analogies you learned in elementary school and
learn the proper physics to understand why electromagnetic waves are
not like sound or water... start with this, why can you polarize light
or radio waves but not sound waves?
  #44   Report Post  
Old May 6th 10, 11:05 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 484
Default What exactly is radio

On May 6, 8:00*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 3, 7:25 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Radio waves from the dipole are polarized. Does it mean that light is
emitted by a dipoles?


sure, why not? *but polarized waves can be emitted from other things
also.



We can shield the one end of the dipole.


no you can't.

A whip antennas on a car is not such?


no, the other half of the dipole is the body of the car itself.




Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?


because they do, its well measured and accurately described in the
equations.

Are the measured and the calculated from the equations in agreement?


yes, to within many, many decimal places... if they did not agree to
within the limits of measurement then someone would have had to make a
new theory to explain the difference.
  #45   Report Post  
Old May 6th 10, 11:07 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 484
Default What exactly is radio

On May 6, 12:58*am, Art Unwin wrote:
The fundamental question: Are radio waves a simple electric waves or the
very sophisticated Maxwell's waves?


ALL radio waves can be described by maxwell's equations, both simple
linear polarized ones and circularly polarized ones.


The fundamental question is really how can we describe this "wave".? A
wave of what "water",
A wave of "water" traveling towards a beach.
Is it water we are really trying to describe or what?
Water has a "skin" on its surface , a skin that encasulates it like a
bag , container or a boundary!
Nothing is clear when describing a "wave" with respect to physics, as
it is just a "F" word to substitute an unexplainable in a psuedo
description
There is no agreement what so ever as to what a "wave" is so there
cannot *exist a description of what radio "IS", "IS"!. Physicists
acknowledge that radio is some thing that is unexplanable leaving just
hams to fill in the unexplainable about radio and to deny the
explanations made by others.
What we do have is a string of mathematical equations all of which
interlock which are a result
of observation and seamingly reasonable deductions. Maxwell deduced b
y examination of units used that a portion of his formula was also a
mathematical explanation of elevation and acceleration but no
description of what! A physicists
named Gauss who provided a lot of Maxwells tools
used Newtons laws to establish boundary laws where it can be seen that
mathematically a clump of static particles in equilibrium could be
made
dynamic by adding a time varying field while retaining equilibrium
meshes with Maxwells equations on radiation. So who on earth descided
to interject "waves" into the discussion and why?
And what experiment was performed that dictated its inclusion in the
subject of radio or radiation that has put a screaming halt to a
sustainable explanation of same for more than a hundred years
where other dreams have come to fruition by utelizing the human brain.
Is it the ham population
that is responsible for the lack of advances in the advancement of
science by denying the inclusion of particles as the basic matter
involved in elevation and acceleration (displacement) as implied by
Maxwell's equations, preferring instead to use 'water' and 'waves' to
describe the science to the non initiated.


maxwell's equations do not describe particle motion, they describe
electric and magnetic fields and electromagnetic waves. as i just
tried to point out to mr. b, the elementary school analogy of water
waves to explain electromagnetic waves must be abandoned before you
can truly understand em waves.


  #46   Report Post  
Old May 7th 10, 01:15 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,339
Default What exactly is radio

On May 6, 5:07*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 6, 12:58*am, Art Unwin wrote:



The fundamental question: Are radio waves a simple electric waves or the
very sophisticated Maxwell's waves?


ALL radio waves can be described by maxwell's equations, both simple
linear polarized ones and circularly polarized ones.


The fundamental question is really how can we describe this "wave".? A
wave of what "water",
A wave of "water" traveling towards a beach.
Is it water we are really trying to describe or what?
Water has a "skin" on its surface , a skin that encasulates it like a
bag , container or a boundary!
Nothing is clear when describing a "wave" with respect to physics, as
it is just a "F" word to substitute an unexplainable in a psuedo
description
There is no agreement what so ever as to what a "wave" is so there
cannot *exist a description of what radio "IS", "IS"!. Physicists
acknowledge that radio is some thing that is unexplanable leaving just
hams to fill in the unexplainable about radio and to deny the
explanations made by others.
What we do have is a string of mathematical equations all of which
interlock which are a result
of observation and seamingly reasonable deductions. Maxwell deduced b
y examination of units used that a portion of his formula was also a
mathematical explanation of elevation and acceleration but no
description of what! A physicists
named Gauss who provided a lot of Maxwells tools
used Newtons laws to establish boundary laws where it can be seen that
mathematically a clump of static particles in equilibrium could be
made
dynamic by adding a time varying field while retaining equilibrium
meshes with Maxwells equations on radiation. So who on earth descided
to interject "waves" into the discussion and why?
And what experiment was performed that dictated its inclusion in the
subject of radio or radiation that has put a screaming halt to a
sustainable explanation of same for more than a hundred years
where other dreams have come to fruition by utelizing the human brain.
Is it the ham population
that is responsible for the lack of advances in the advancement of
science by denying the inclusion of particles as the basic matter
involved in elevation and acceleration (displacement) as implied by
Maxwell's equations, preferring instead to use 'water' and 'waves' to
describe the science to the non initiated.


maxwell's equations do not describe particle motion, they describe
electric and magnetic fields and electromagnetic waves. *as i just
tried to point out to mr. b, the elementary school analogy of water
waves to explain electromagnetic waves must be abandoned before you
can truly understand em waves.


I am happy about that but it doesn't help me to understand em waves or
where they are involved with Maxwell. It is inbuilt in physics that we
are accelerating a charge where acceleration demands
mass. But there is no continuation of explanation beyond that point.
Every theory since classical has broken down and we are now in the
superstring theory while at the same time trying to collide the
smallest particle on earth which determines the speed of light. You
definitely can not involve acceleration without mass, and gravity can
only be canceled by a reactionary vecto r being involved and you
cannot have a straight line trajectory without two vectors
representing gravity and its associated spin. Frankly, we should
start again using the basics of Newton as used by Maxwell
and then backtracking to the time of Einstein by supplying the
relationship of static and dynamic fields so that frausteration did
not drive us away from former progress in physics over the centuries
to invent particles without mass, anti particles and acceleration of
string which can take on the shape of a wave.
What startles me is the acceptance of computer programs based on
Maxwell which clearly show that the radiating member must have zero
resistance for maximum radiation. That radiation resistance implies
that of an encapsulating
substance which is elevated and accelerated by the action of
displacement current in a similar manner to scrap metal sorting yards.
Now I read that present particle science is retracting to the idea of
a single particle being the source of the standard model and where the
existing environment is creating the observences at any point in time
based on the existance of matter in all cases. It is time we reverted
back to the demands of equilibrium where an "equal" sign
addition to any equation demands that the addition
of all used in that equation must equal zero. Which is a staple of all
that is used by the human race over the centuries. Not one of many
theorems on radio have come to fruition with the use of integra ated
solutions to satisfy the whole. All we have are totally disconnected
imaginations spawned by using mathematical tricks of doubtful merit
with imaginary inventions to fill in the inevitable gaps.
We only have one tool that is solidly connected to equations of
maxwell and that is the computer programs with optimizer that adheres
solely to the stated equation together with adherence to equilibrium.
What better place exists to delve further into the Masters thoughts
rather than the manufacture of another theorem?
  #47   Report Post  
Old May 7th 10, 02:41 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
tom tom is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2009
Posts: 660
Default What exactly is radio

On 5/6/2010 7:15 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

I am happy about that but it doesn't help me to understand em waves or
where they are involved with Maxwell. It is inbuilt in physics that we
are accelerating a charge where acceleration demands
mass. But there is no continuation of explanation beyond that point.
Every theory since classical has broken down and we are now in the
superstring theory while at the same time trying to collide the
smallest particle on earth which determines the speed of light. You
definitely can not involve acceleration without mass, and gravity can
only be canceled by a reactionary vecto r being involved and you
cannot have a straight line trajectory without two vectors
representing gravity and its associated spin. Frankly, we should
start again using the basics of Newton as used by Maxwell
and then backtracking to the time of Einstein by supplying the
relationship of static and dynamic fields so that frausteration did
not drive us away from former progress in physics over the centuries
to invent particles without mass, anti particles and acceleration of
string which can take on the shape of a wave.
What startles me is the acceptance of computer programs based on
Maxwell which clearly show that the radiating member must have zero
resistance for maximum radiation. That radiation resistance implies
that of an encapsulating
substance which is elevated and accelerated by the action of
displacement current in a similar manner to scrap metal sorting yards.
Now I read that present particle science is retracting to the idea of
a single particle being the source of the standard model and where the
existing environment is creating the observences at any point in time
based on the existance of matter in all cases. It is time we reverted
back to the demands of equilibrium where an "equal" sign
addition to any equation demands that the addition
of all used in that equation must equal zero. Which is a staple of all
that is used by the human race over the centuries. Not one of many
theorems on radio have come to fruition with the use of integra ated
solutions to satisfy the whole. All we have are totally disconnected
imaginations spawned by using mathematical tricks of doubtful merit
with imaginary inventions to fill in the inevitable gaps.
We only have one tool that is solidly connected to equations of
maxwell and that is the computer programs with optimizer that adheres
solely to the stated equation together with adherence to equilibrium.
What better place exists to delve further into the Masters thoughts
rather than the manufacture of another theorem?


Time to start taking your meds again.

tom
K0TAR


  #48   Report Post  
Old May 7th 10, 02:42 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
tom tom is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2009
Posts: 660
Default What exactly is radio

On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce the
electric field. Why not?


Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

  #49   Report Post  
Old May 7th 10, 03:25 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
tom tom is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2009
Posts: 660
Default What exactly is radio

On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?


Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR


Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

tom
K0TAR

  #50   Report Post  
Old May 7th 10, 03:55 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,898
Default What exactly is radio

tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?


Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR


Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

tom
K0TAR


You were correct the first time.

Nothing with mass can attain light speed and it doesn't matter if it is
charged or not.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017