On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:41:55 +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.

Now we have the two different physics. One for students and the second in
engineering.

The students are different, not the Physics. There is also college
physics and University physics. The sense here is that you are adept
at calculus (University) or you are not (college). Your explanations
of physics are not even High School (Gymnasium) level.

Why are you posting here?

To lern something from engineering people. I was sure that people in this
group must know such phenomenon. It was Brian Howie. He wrote: "You can get
ionospheric mixing of radio waves. e.g Luxembourg Effect; so
doubling is possible."

This is useless. It is like you asking "Will it rain?", and someone
telling you the story of Noah and the flood. Would you build an Ark
based on this answer to your question?

Today I found this:
http://durenberger.com/resources/doc...EFFECT0235.pdf

Again, a very poor source. You are merely wandering along the shelves
and picking up random information.

So I have known what I want to know.
Of course my explanation of the phenomenon is as I described here.
It is not easy to understand me. I am sure that Wim does. He wrote "If you
would like to know more about EM-fields related to antennas and electronics,
just start with classical EM theory. This is a solid
tool, existing over 100 years and is used by many people with succes
to predict behaviour of circuits and antennas. If this will change of
today, I will close my business activities next monday"

What was the point of quoting this when you have done nothing from his
advice?

Most engineering people very quickly forget the "classical EM theory" as was
tought in schools. In the "classical EM theory" no electrons. Engineering
use his own physics with electrons.
S*

This worn out phrase is repeated so much that I don't think you are
really interested in anything more than trolling.

If you actually found a solution in the Luxembourg effect you could
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?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC