We will take this by parts:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:00:09 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

The topics is polarisation. This word has the two meaning. The both have
wrong explanations in texbooks.

Blaming references is a very strong indicator of you having the
problem, not the textbooks.

The one I have verified with the comb.

I've read that, and it proves nothing that is part of the topic (I
shall explain below).

The second "wave polarisation" is explained with transverse waves. No
transverse waves.

If "no," then what "yes?"

Actually you have mixed up two different characteristics. Polarity
and polarization are NOT the same thing. With RF radiation, the wave
is constantly changing polarity (that is why the source of RF is
called alternating current), but within the "line of sight" of the
antenna, the polarization for a dipole is defined by its angle to the
earth as viewed by the observer.

If you see an horizontal dipole, it produces alternating polarities of
waves with horizontal polarization. If you see a vertical dipole, it
produces alternating polarities of waves with vertical polarization.

RF energy is ALWAYS changing polarity.

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.

The comb was useless in proving anything about RF, antennas, or
polarization. What it demonstrates is induced polarity in a
dielectric. Interesting, but entirely unrelated to the topic.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC