On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:01:35 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

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

Is in old books the same as in todays?
Sometimes they are changed.

Engineering? Never.

You wrote: "Compressional waves or longitudinal waves? In solid or air or
in
liquid? The answers to these questions lead to very, very different
behavior. As I say, these simplicities you use are nonsense"

In EM are many simplifications. Electric waves are like the acoustic.

They are not. You are repeating your nonsense again.

Of
course they kick the electrons in antennas not a membranes.

This is more nonsense.

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

In transvers waves something changes the direction of rotation. The source
makes rotating oscillations.

You are showing very little capacity to understand alternating
current, RF, and radiation.

(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.)

You decribe the electric waves.

I am describing radiation.

The Acoustic analogy will be also interesting.
S*

No, it would not. Radiation is wholly unlike acoustics and very few
people actually understand acoustics. Having the experience of
"hearing" does not qualify you as being proficient in its discussion.
Human sensation is vastly more illusion than science.

This is quite evident in your postings where you rely on crude
simplifications and incorrect metaphors. The proof of their failure
in your being to understand the topic of wave polarization is you
cannot answer:

First, let us return to that link you offered with the Hertzian Loop
with its spark gap. Let us say that this loop is 1 meter of wire
(about the actual size anyway). Let us say there is a current
detector at each end of this loop. Let us say we have closed a switch
that applies voltage to the loop, and the first meter has indicated
current flow. This is our time reference point. Now the questions:

1. For the electron that went through the first current detector, how
long does it take for that SAME electron to get to the second
detector?

2. How long does it take for the second detector to indicate there is
current flow?

Hint: the answer for 1. is very, very different for the answer for 2.

Now, let us say that before that SAME electron gets to the second
current detector, that path is broken open (maybe 1 pico second before
the SAME electron arrival). The SAME electron sees an open circuit.
What is the amount of energy required for the electron to break out of
the metal conductor, and into the air?

These are very fundamental concepts that, if you cannot respond to
them, reveal your range of involvement is extremely thin and you
probably have no real interest in the topic.

Why are you posting here?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC