"christofire" wrote
...
"Szczepan Białek" wrote in message
...
-- snip --
Do you know somebody who has more proven reputation in acoustic and
electrodynamics than Helmholtz?
* Yes: the late John D Kraus. He was a practical engineer as well as a
theoretician and his native language was English. He managed to put
into practice a lot of the theory that others had written about and he
recorded his work lucidly. I've already named two of Kraus's books -
can you cite something written by any of your favourites that provides
clear explanations that you understand? Answers.com doesn't explain
anything technical.
For practical engineers the math theory is useless.
* No, that's quite wrong. Practical engineers use mathematics a great
deal.
They make calculations using empirical equations.
Amateurs may not, but they're not all engineers. To make a statement like
that it would appear you have never worked successfully as a practical
engineer using the conventional definition of 'engineer': a person trained
in any branch of engineering.
It si very funny to read this. Todays engineers use the Ampere,Gauss, Weber
Electrodynamisc but are sure that they use the Maxwell's.
* Heaviside's documentation is appaling! I remember going through a
catalogue of his work in an effort to get to the truth about the origin
of the 'Heaviside condition' - a lot of it was written in obfuscation
babble, a bit like some of the contributors to this group.
He is the father of the hydraulic analogy where the electricity is the
incompressble masless flud.
Electrons in antenns are compressible and have mass. What is electricity
in J. D. Kraus?
* It's the passage of charge through conductors, the same as it is
everywhere else, of course. Compressibilty of electrons doesn't feateure
in any of Kraus's books that I've read, which must mean it is not a
necessary concept for normal, physical, antennas and propagation.
He use (probably) the term voltage. Voltage is the same as pressure or the
electron density. Is the voltage the necessary concept or no?
And what about the mass of electrons in the books?
* What 'two loudspeaker'? If you're drawing comparison between a
direct-radiator loudspeaker and a dipole and using that as a basis for
saying that EM waves are longitudinal, as I suspect you are, then you
should also consider a horn loudspeaker. Sound is radiated from the
mouth of a horn 'speaker and the other side of the compression driver
diaphragm can be totally enclosed. There is no simple comparison with
a dipole antenna in this case.
The horn is a monopole. See:
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/rad2/mdq.html
The unboxed loudspeaker is a dipole.
* Why don't you look into horn louspeakers and then report back. You
may find them fascinating and very unlike dipoles.
Like fascinating is the two monopoles antennas (your dipoles).
S*
* You claimed that EM waves are longitudinal,
Not me. It is Helmholtz and many others.
like sound waves, and you used some comparison between a loudspeaker and a
dipole as justification. So now you understand that not all loudspeakers
behave that way ... so what? Do you still believe EM waves are
longitudinal or have you changed your mind? If you believe Dan Russell
then where on his site does he state that EM waves are longitudinal? Of
course, he doesn't.
Dan Russel do not state enything about EM. EM waves will be always
transversal because such we assumed before writting the math. Real electric
waves radiated by one monopole end two monopoles you can see on this
animation.
On second thought, don't bother replying - this dialogue is going nowhere
and is a waste of our time.
Dave is right: "only if you take it seriously... i consider it great
entertainment"
It is very funny that radio enginners do not know that they do not use the
Maxwell's model of the eather.
S*