wave polarisation
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
EM existing over 100 years ...

EM waves have existed ever since space
became transparent more than 10 billion
years ago. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

wave polarisation
 

U¿ytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
EM existing over 100 years ...

EM waves have existed ever since space
became transparent more than 10 billion
years ago. :-)

It is proposition by Maxwell. Do not verified to now.
Electric waves have more chance.
For some it is obvious that in space may be the only one mechanism.
Aepinus proved that gravity and electrostatics are the same. (the
coefficient in the Coulomb equation has the tree different values)
Ampere proved that the magnetism is an ilusion.
So no place for the proposition.
S*

wave polarisation
 

U¿ytkownik "Dave" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

U¿ytkownik "Dave" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
So the most specific and important question is:
How is frequency in receiving antenna. Is it doubled?

no. i transmit a given frequency and that is what is received. easily
measured even with simple instruments.

Yes. But an antenna receive the doubled impulses (from the ends of the
Hertz dipole).

The simple instruments must distinguish the doubled frequency from the
second harmonics.
S*

sure, they are double kicked... first one direction then the other within
one cycle. you and art should get together, maybe he could straighten you
out.

I am not fluent in English. So try to understand.
The electrons (they have mass and inertia) colect in one end and next
disappear. It is the one cycle. Next they travel to the other end. It takes
time. So in space are send the two signals.(in one your cycle).
In the same time 9Your cycle) the current flow to and fro.
In unverified EM the current cause the spherical wave. In reality the ends.
Only Your simple measurements can verify it.
S*

wave polarisation
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

U¿ytkownik "Dave" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

U¿ytkownik "Dave" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
So the most specific and important question is:
How is frequency in receiving antenna. Is it doubled?

no. i transmit a given frequency and that is what is received. easily
measured even with simple instruments.

Yes. But an antenna receive the doubled impulses (from the ends of the
Hertz dipole).

The simple instruments must distinguish the doubled frequency from the
second harmonics.
S*

sure, they are double kicked... first one direction then the other within
one cycle. you and art should get together, maybe he could straighten
you out.

I am not fluent in English. So try to understand.
The electrons (they have mass and inertia) colect in one end and next
disappear. It is the one cycle. Next they travel to the other end. It
takes time. So in space are send the two signals.(in one your cycle).
In the same time 9Your cycle) the current flow to and fro.
In unverified EM the current cause the spherical wave. In reality the
ends.
Only Your simple measurements can verify it.
S*
i have made my simple measurements, the frequency is not doubled by the
antenna.

wave polarisation
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

I am not fluent in English. So try to understand.
The electrons (they have mass and inertia) colect in one end and next
disappear. It is the one cycle. Next they travel to the other end. It
takes time. So in space are send the two signals.(in one your cycle).
In the same time 9Your cycle) the current flow to and fro.
In unverified EM the current cause the spherical wave. In reality the
ends.
Only Your simple measurements can verify it.
S*
i have made my simple measurements, the frequency is not doubled by the
antenna.

You are to speedy. Look at the original Hertz experiment:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

There is: "According to theory, if electromagnetic waves were spreading from
the oscillator sparks, they would induce a current in the loop that would
send sparks across the gap"

In EM waves are produced by the current (oscllator sparks in the Hertz
apparatus). One cycle is completed when the current flow to and fro.

But there is possible the other theory. Electric waves are spreading from
the ends (plates or big balls in Hertz apparatus). Now we know that
electrons have mass and are compressible. So at the ends appear and
disappear the huge charges. In that case an electric impulse is send when
the current flows to (from one end) , and the next when the current flows
fro (from the other end). So in one EM cycle are the two electric cycles.
So the frequency is not doubled. The electric is twice more.

Does your measurements distinguish radiation from the spakrks from that from
the plates?
S*

wave polarisation
 

On Mon, 11 May 2009 19:21:32 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

You are to speedy. Look at the original Hertz experiment:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

Poor citation to include broken links and missing material.

There is: "According to theory, if electromagnetic waves were spreading from
the oscillator sparks, they would induce a current in the loop that would
send sparks across the gap"

If? If is wrong.

In EM waves are produced by the current (oscllator sparks in the Hertz
apparatus). One cycle is completed when the current flow to and fro.

You say this often, but it adds nothing important.

But there is possible the other theory. Electric waves are spreading from
the ends (plates or big balls in Hertz apparatus).

This is not ANOTHER theory. Your first "If" is not a theory at all.
It is an incorrect statement surrounded by poor writing. It is like
this next statement:

Now we know that
electrons have mass and are compressible.

Nonsense.

So at the ends appear and
disappear the huge charges. In that case an electric impulse is send when
the current flows to (from one end) , and the next when the current flows
fro (from the other end).

Nonsense.

So in one EM cycle are the two electric cycles.

Nonsense.

So the frequency is not doubled. The electric is twice more.

This is either very poor English, or more nonsense.

Does your measurements distinguish radiation from the spakrks from that from
the plates?
S*

Of course they do. More the question: can you measure them too? If
you cannot, then this explains the nonsense.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wave polarisation
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

I am not fluent in English. So try to understand.
The electrons (they have mass and inertia) colect in one end and next
disappear. It is the one cycle. Next they travel to the other end. It
takes time. So in space are send the two signals.(in one your cycle).
In the same time 9Your cycle) the current flow to and fro.
In unverified EM the current cause the spherical wave. In reality the
ends.
Only Your simple measurements can verify it.
S*
i have made my simple measurements, the frequency is not doubled by the
antenna.

You are to speedy. Look at the original Hertz experiment:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

There is: "According to theory, if electromagnetic waves were spreading
from
the oscillator sparks, they would induce a current in the loop that would
send sparks across the gap"

In EM waves are produced by the current (oscllator sparks in the Hertz
apparatus). One cycle is completed when the current flow to and fro.

But there is possible the other theory. Electric waves are spreading from
the ends (plates or big balls in Hertz apparatus). Now we know that
electrons have mass and are compressible. So at the ends appear and
disappear the huge charges. In that case an electric impulse is send when
the current flows to (from one end) , and the next when the current flows
fro (from the other end). So in one EM cycle are the two electric cycles.
So the frequency is not doubled. The electric is twice more.

Does your measurements distinguish radiation from the spakrks from that
from the plates?
S*

I'm sorry, but i don't have a spark transmitter, those have been rather
illegal for many years because of the extreme bandwidth and noise they
generate. I use a nice clean sine wave so there is no harmonic generated.
if you use a spark generator there will be many harmonics, but they come
from the waveform being generated.

wave polarisation
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Mon, 11 May 2009 19:21:32 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:


Now we know that
electrons have mass and are compressible.

Nonsense.

Millikan measured it in XIX centuary. Latelly Wim wrote: "Hello Szczepan,

You are right, charge is compressible. The charge that is required to
charge (for example) a sphere seems to break the coninuity equition as
is used for incompressible fluid in hydraulics".

So at the ends appear and
disappear the huge charges. In that case an electric impulse is send when
the current flows to (from one end) , and the next when the current flows
fro (from the other end).

Nonsense.

I was told that the electrons want to escape from the ends of a dipole (
balls are a remedy).

So in one EM cycle are the two electric cycles.

Nonsense.

So the frequency is not doubled. The electric is twice more.

This is either very poor English, or more nonsense.

Let assume that something is radiated from the end when the charge
(compressed electrons) appears. There are the two ends. How many pulses will
be send in space ?

Does your measurements distinguish radiation from the spakrks from that
from
the plates?
S*

Of course they do. More the question: can you measure them too?

No. The only instrument I have is the comb. But it was enough to verify the
second meaning of word "polarisation". Everywhere is written that a charged
comb attract a stream of water. And that it is caused by polarisation.
It is caused by electrostriction. Decreasing E-field deform water stream. Of
course the electrostriction is caused by the polarisation of H2O particles.
Charged comb do not attract water drops.

If you cannot, then this explains the nonsense.

Something is radiated from the ends of the dipole. Can you detect it?
S*

wave polarisation
 

On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:56:18 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote
.. .
On Mon, 11 May 2009 19:21:32 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:


Now we know that
electrons have mass and are compressible.

Nonsense.

Millikan measured it in XIX centuary. Latelly Wim wrote: "Hello Szczepan,

You are right, charge is compressible. The charge that is required to
charge (for example) a sphere seems to break the coninuity equition as
is used for incompressible fluid in hydraulics".

Now we are into utter nonsense.

So at the ends appear and
disappear the huge charges. In that case an electric impulse is send when
the current flows to (from one end) , and the next when the current flows
fro (from the other end).

Nonsense.

I was told that the electrons want to escape from the ends of a dipole (
balls are a remedy).

Then you were told nonsense. At least study something with accurate
fundamentals.

Let assume that something is radiated from the end

This alone explains why you have a very poor understanding of the
dynamics. An antenna radiates in ALL directions from EVERYPOINT of
the antenna. No one has to make special "assumptions" that are
limiting and with the appearance of being special knowledge.

when the charge
(compressed electrons) appears. There are the two ends. How many pulses will
be send in space ?

Radiation is not pulses.

Does your measurements distinguish radiation from the spakrks from that
from
the plates?
S*

Of course they do. More the question: can you measure them too?

No.


Then you have very limited resources and absolutely no basis for
discussion of the topic.

The only instrument I have is the comb. But it was enough to verify the
second meaning of word "polarisation".

That adds nothing to the topic except you are working at very crude
levels with very limited knowledge about a vastly more complex issue.

If you cannot, then this explains the nonsense.

Something is radiated from the ends of the dipole. Can you detect it?

I already said I could, and you said you couldn't. Why do you ask
again?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wave polarisation
 

"Richard Clark"
...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:56:18 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:


The only instrument I have is the comb. But it was enough to verify the
second meaning of word "polarisation".

That adds nothing to the topic except you are working at very crude
levels with very limited knowledge about a vastly more complex issue.

The topics is polarisation. This word has the two meaning. The both have
wrong explanations in texbooks. The one I have verified with the comb.
The second "wave polarisation" is explained with transverse waves. No
transverse waves. 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.

If you cannot, then this explains the nonsense.

Something is radiated from the ends of the dipole. Can you detect it?

I already said I could, and you said you couldn't. Why do you ask
again?

I hope that somebody else reads us.
S*