"Dave Platt" wrote
...
In article ,
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

The TRANSVERSAL magnetic disturbances have beautifull math. The most
beauty
math element is the displacement current.

But the magnetic disturbances are creates by AC CURRENT (not voltage).

So if the radio waves are emitted from the current zone of antenna Maxwell
is right. If from ends - not.

Maxwell admired Ampere. But each genius works out his own theories. We can
choose between them.

So, the obvious thing for you to do (as the proponent of an
alternative, nontraditional theory) is to devise an experiment which
can distinguish between these two cases.

The traditional theory is the acoustic theory. The nontraditional theory is
the Maxwell model. In his model the transverse waves propagate in a solid
body. Maxwell devised many experiments. One of them was the famous MM
experiment. But Maxwell dead before the result.

Remember, that when a responsible scientist proposes a theory, that
scientist tries as hard as possible to come up with ways to *dis*prove
the theory - that is, experiments which predict a testable result,
which differs from the predictions of other theories.

Maxwell ended his life at 47. He was responsible but he had not enough time.

If the new theory can survive such testing, then it's got some meat on
its bones... and choosing it would make sense.

If it fails to survive the testing, it's wrong... and choosing it
would be mistaken.

The teachers choose it. The engineering people choose electrons.

If the scientist can't use the theory to make testable predictions,
it's useless... and choosing it would be futile.

It is the excelent "piece to teach".

If all of the predictions of the new theory are indistinguishable from
the predictions of prevailing theory, then perhaps it isn't really
new.. It may just be a restatement of the prevailing theory in
different words... and if so, choosing it would be entirely a matter
of taste or preference.

Maxwell theory was really new.

If the scientist won't even *try* to use the theory to make testable
predictions which might prove the theory wrong, then s/he isn't a
scientist.

Maxwell had not enough time to do it.

So... how would *you* construct and measure an antenna (and perhaps
modify it and then measure again), in order to demonstrate that your
theory predicts the actual behavior of the antenna better than the
standard theory?

Standard theory is the acoustic theory. All YOUR antennas demonstrate that
the acoustic analogy is O.K.

Here's a suggestion: start out with a model of a straight half-wave
dipole. Predict its radiation pattern and feedpoint impedance, based
on Maxwell's current-based theory and on your own voltage-at-the-end
theory. Measure the pattern and impedance.

I am here to encourage you all to do it.

Now, "bend" the antenna into different shapes. For example - leave
the center portion of the dipole in a straight line. Bend the ends in
various directions, shaping the antenna into a U, or into a Z, or a C
(with the tips close together but not touching). Shorten the center
section and split the ends, forming an H (e.g. short radiator with
capacity loads on each end).

In each case, predict the pattern and feedpoint impedance based on
Maxwell's theory and on your own.

Can you find cases in which the predictions vary? If so, which
matches the actual (measured) behavior of the antenna better?

I am sure that somebody young do it. Maxwell would be happy.

Mathematical beauty is great... but if it doesn't predict the actual
behavior of real-world phenomena, it's just beautiful math.

Math is still necessary in schools. But in this case the math will be saved.
The Maxwell equations were the same like the Helmholtz for the fluid
mechanics. Now the same math is taught in the two subjects (fluids and EM).
Very often the same teacher do it.
S*