On Mon, 11 May 2009 19:21:32 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

You are to speedy. Look at the original Hertz experiment:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

Poor citation to include broken links and missing material.

There is: "According to theory, if electromagnetic waves were spreading from
the oscillator sparks, they would induce a current in the loop that would
send sparks across the gap"

If? If is wrong.

In EM waves are produced by the current (oscllator sparks in the Hertz
apparatus). One cycle is completed when the current flow to and fro.

You say this often, but it adds nothing important.

But there is possible the other theory. Electric waves are spreading from
the ends (plates or big balls in Hertz apparatus).

This is not ANOTHER theory. Your first "If" is not a theory at all.
It is an incorrect statement surrounded by poor writing. It is like
this next statement:

Now we know that
electrons have mass and are compressible.

Nonsense.

So at the ends appear and
disappear the huge charges. In that case an electric impulse is send when
the current flows to (from one end) , and the next when the current flows
fro (from the other end).

Nonsense.

So in one EM cycle are the two electric cycles.

Nonsense.

So the frequency is not doubled. The electric is twice more.

This is either very poor English, or more nonsense.

Does your measurements distinguish radiation from the spakrks from that from
the plates?
S*

Of course they do. More the question: can you measure them too? If
you cannot, then this explains the nonsense.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC