"Richard Clark"
...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:56:18 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:


The only instrument I have is the comb. But it was enough to verify the
second meaning of word "polarisation".

That adds nothing to the topic except you are working at very crude
levels with very limited knowledge about a vastly more complex issue.

The topics is polarisation. This word has the two meaning. The both have
wrong explanations in texbooks. The one I have verified with the comb.
The second "wave polarisation" is explained with transverse waves. No
transverse waves. If receiver (resonator) must be parallel to emmiter you
can explain it in many ways. But to verify it the comb is not enough. So I
need help.

If you cannot, then this explains the nonsense.

Something is radiated from the ends of the dipole. Can you detect it?

I already said I could, and you said you couldn't. Why do you ask
again?

I hope that somebody else reads us.
S*