Szczepan Bialek,

I think I speak for the collective readership when I say we are
tired of your erroneous arguments about frequency doubling and its
causes.

You evidently have read a little about the Luxembourg effect, but
you failed to read the hundreds of articles available on the
Internet on this subject. I suspect your problem is one of language
and adolescent stubbornness combined.

To make things simple for you, do your search on "Ionospheric Cross
Modulation". This is defined by the IEC (Commission
Electrotechnique Internationale) in their IEC 60050 International
Electrotechnical Vocabulary as:

Ionospheric Cross Modulation, Luxembourg effect —
the modulation of a radio wave by the modulating signal of
another wave having a different frequency, resulting from
NON-LINEAR PHENOMENA in a region of the ionosphere through
which both waves pass.

Or if French is easier for you to read:

Transmodulation Ionosphérique, effet Luxembourg — modulation
d'une onde radioélectrique par le signal modulant d'une autre
onde de fréquence différente, qui résulte D'EFFETS
NON-LINÉAIRES dans une région de l'ionosphère traversée par
les deux ondes.

Note the emphasized words. Non-linearity of the D-layer of the
ionosphere is quite well understood today. In fact, most of the
initial mechanism was known before the Second World War. In the
late 1940's and in the 1950's, theories were improved as different
modes of propagation were studied. Today we find that this
ionospheric cross modulation effect has become a tool to study the
lower ionosphere.

For some good reading on this subject, I suggest reading "An
Introduction to the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere" by John Ashworth
Ratcliffe. Much of this book can be read using Google Book Search.
Another work found on the Web is the PhD dissertation of Mehmet
Kürsad Demirkol from Stanford University
(http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/pu...kolThesis.pdf).
Quoting from his abstract:

Electron density and temperature changes in the D-region are
sensitively manifested as changes in the amplitude and phase
of subionospheric Very Low Frequency (VLF) signals
propagating beneath the perturbed region. Both localized and
large scale disturbances (either in electron density or
temperature) in the D-region cause significant scattering of
VLF waves propagating in the earth-ionosphere waveguide,
leading to measurable changes in the amplitude and phase of
the VLF waves. Large scale auroral disturbances, associated
with intensification of the auroral electrojet, as well as
ionospheric disturbances produced during relativistic
electron enhancements, cause characteristic changes over
relatively long time scales that allow the assessment of the
'ambient' ionosphere. Localized ionospheric disturbances are
also produced by powerful HF transmitting facilities such as
the High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS) facility, the High
frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP*), and also by
lightning discharges. Amplitude and phase changes of VLF
waveguide signals scattered from such artificially heated
ionospheric patches are known to be detectable.

Nowhere in all of the respected literature will you find frequency
doubling caused by the two ends of a dipole. In fact, the end
"balls" of Hertz's experiments were nothing more than capacitance
hats. The experiment would have worked perfectly well without them.

You have pushed the patience to the breaking point of many of this
newsgroup's readers, including some experts far more knowledgeable
in electromagnetics than myself. Expletives from these people,
while certainly deserved, are not needed. Until Szczepan does his
research on ionospheric cross modulation, I suggest that we just
ignore him (or use a killfile).

--
73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ


* This group is also not the place to bring up conspiracy theories
involving this research program.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:43:27 -0400, "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz"
wrote:

I suspect your problem is one of language
and adolescent stubbornness combined.

Hi Barry,

I suspect you would be wrong on two counts, but that is of no
importance.

frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP*), and also by

* This group is also not the place to bring up conspiracy theories
involving this research program.

Good resources that will add to our composite knowledge. I will
browse them. As for HAARP, that "controversy" has faded considerable
from its first incendiary introduction years ago. I wonder if Stephan
will pick up on its implications.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:43:27 -0400, "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz"
wrote:

I suspect your problem is one of language
and adolescent stubbornness combined.

Hi Barry,

I suspect you would be wrong on two counts, but that is of no
importance.

frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP*), and also by

* This group is also not the place to bring up conspiracy theories
involving this research program.

Good resources that will add to our composite knowledge. I will
browse them. As for HAARP, that "controversy" has faded considerable
from its first incendiary introduction years ago. I wonder if Stephan
will pick up on its implications.

Now I read only the description (original if possible) of experiments and
observations. Interpretations and explanation I do myself.
Now are many publications because they are obligatory (like homework). The
problem transverse vs longitudinal is now very simple. In nature no pure
transverse waves. Always are the two components. Even water waves are
largely longitudinal.
But we need the explanation for light polarization. So I am here.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:43:27 -0400, "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz"
wrote:

I suspect your problem is one of language
and adolescent stubbornness combined.

Hi Barry,

I suspect you would be wrong on two counts, but that is of no
importance.

frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP*), and also by

* This group is also not the place to bring up conspiracy theories
involving this research program.

Good resources that will add to our composite knowledge. I will
browse them. As for HAARP, that "controversy" has faded considerable
from its first incendiary introduction years ago. I wonder if Stephan
will pick up on its implications.

Now I read only the description (original if possible) of experiments and
observations. Interpretations and explanation I do myself.
Now are many publications because they are obligatory (like homework). The
problem transverse vs longitudinal is now very simple. In nature no pure
transverse waves. Always are the two components. Even water waves are
largely longitudinal.
But we need the explanation for light polarization. So I am here.
S*

EM waves are transverse. The Poynting vector is the cross product of the
electric and magnetic field, by definition that results in a direction of
propagation that is perpendicular to the two fields.

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:43:27 -0400, "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz"
wrote:

I suspect your problem is one of language
and adolescent stubbornness combined.

Hi Barry,

I suspect you would be wrong on two counts, but that is of no
importance.

frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP*), and also by

* This group is also not the place to bring up conspiracy theories
involving this research program.

Good resources that will add to our composite knowledge. I will
browse them. As for HAARP, that "controversy" has faded considerable
from its first incendiary introduction years ago. I wonder if Stephan
will pick up on its implications.

Now I read only the description (original if possible) of experiments and
observations. Interpretations and explanation I do myself.
Now are many publications because they are obligatory (like homework).
The problem transverse vs longitudinal is now very simple. In nature no
pure transverse waves. Always are the two components. Even water waves
are largely longitudinal.
But we need the explanation for light polarization. So I am here.
S*

EM waves are transverse. The Poynting vector is the cross product of the
electric and magnetic field, by definition that results in a direction of
propagation that is perpendicular to the two fields.

The Pointing vector and the rest are from the fluid mechnics. There are the
whirls. Whirls had also sense in times when electricity was as
incompressible massles fluid. The moving electrons cause in medium stress
and strains.
The magnetic whirl around a wire is a assmption. The clasical EM is valid
only for such assumption.
S*

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
The magnetic whirl around a wire is a assmption. The clasical EM is
valid only for such assumption.

EM waves in free space, "in" a wire, or in a waveguide,
propagate at the speed of light in the medium. Therefore,
the EM energy is photonic since electrons cannot move
that fast. Even the impulse current in a DC circuit
is photonic. The name "standing wave" is an oxymoron.
If its standing, it's not a wave, by definition.

An analogy might be water flowing through a pipe. One
can send information through the pipe much faster than
the water is flowing.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

U¿ytkownik "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...
Szczepan Bialek,

I think I speak for the collective readership when I say we are
tired of your erroneous arguments about frequency doubling and its
causes.

You evidently have read a little about the Luxembourg effect, but
you failed to read the hundreds of articles available on the
Internet on this subject. I suspect your problem is one of language
and adolescent stubbornness combined.

To make things simple for you, do your search on "Ionospheric Cross
Modulation". This is defined by the IEC (Commission
Electrotechnique Internationale) in their IEC 60050 International
Electrotechnical Vocabulary as:

Ionospheric Cross Modulation, Luxembourg effect —
the modulation of a radio wave by the modulating signal of
another wave having a different frequency, resulting from
NON-LINEAR PHENOMENA in a region of the ionosphere through
which both waves pass.

Or if French is easier for you to read:

Transmodulation Ionosphérique, effet Luxembourg — modulation
d'une onde radioélectrique par le signal modulant d'une autre
onde de fréquence différente, qui résulte D'EFFETS
NON-LINÉAIRES dans une région de l'ionosphère traversée par
les deux ondes.

Note the emphasized words. Non-linearity of the D-layer of the
ionosphere is quite well understood today. In fact, most of the
initial mechanism was known before the Second World War. In the
late 1940's and in the 1950's, theories were improved as different
modes of propagation were studied. Today we find that this
ionospheric cross modulation effect has become a tool to study the
lower ionosphere.

For some good reading on this subject, I suggest reading "An
Introduction to the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere" by John Ashworth
Ratcliffe. Much of this book can be read using Google Book Search.
Another work found on the Web is the PhD dissertation of Mehmet
Kürsad Demirkol from Stanford University
(http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/pu...kolThesis.pdf).
Quoting from his abstract:

Electron density and temperature changes in the D-region are
sensitively manifested as changes in the amplitude and phase
of subionospheric Very Low Frequency (VLF) signals
propagating beneath the perturbed region. Both localized and
large scale disturbances (either in electron density or
temperature) in the D-region cause significant scattering of
VLF waves propagating in the earth-ionosphere waveguide,
leading to measurable changes in the amplitude and phase of
the VLF waves. Large scale auroral disturbances, associated
with intensification of the auroral electrojet, as well as
ionospheric disturbances produced during relativistic
electron enhancements, cause characteristic changes over
relatively long time scales that allow the assessment of the
'ambient' ionosphere. Localized ionospheric disturbances are
also produced by powerful HF transmitting facilities such as
the High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS) facility, the High
frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP*), and also by
lightning discharges. Amplitude and phase changes of VLF
waveguide signals scattered from such artificially heated
ionospheric patches are known to be detectable.

Nowhere in all of the respected literature will you find frequency
doubling caused by the two ends of a dipole. In fact, the end
"balls" of Hertz's experiments were nothing more than capacitance
hats. The experiment would have worked perfectly well without them.

You have pushed the patience to the breaking point of many of this
newsgroup's readers, including some experts far more knowledgeable
in electromagnetics than myself. Expletives from these people,
while certainly deserved, are not needed. Until Szczepan does his
research on ionospheric cross modulation, I suggest that we just
ignore him (or use a killfile).

--
73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ


* This group is also not the place to bring up conspiracy theories
involving this research program.

"Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" wrote
...
Szczepan Bialek,

I think I speak for the collective readership when I say we are
tired of your erroneous arguments about frequency doubling and its
causes.

You evidently have read a little about the Luxembourg effect, but
you failed to read the hundreds of articles available on the
Internet on this subject. I suspect your problem is one of language
and adolescent stubbornness combined.

I am retired and very lazy.

To make things simple for you, do your search on "Ionospheric Cross
Modulation". This is defined by the IEC (Commission
Electrotechnique Internationale) in their IEC 60050 International
Electrotechnical Vocabulary as:

Ionospheric Cross Modulation, Luxembourg effect —
the modulation of a radio wave by the modulating signal of
another wave having a different frequency, resulting from
NON-LINEAR PHENOMENA in a region of the ionosphere through
which both waves pass.

Or if French is easier for you to read:

Transmodulation Ionosphérique, effet Luxembourg — modulation
d'une onde radioélectrique par le signal modulant d'une autre
onde de fréquence différente, qui résulte D'EFFETS
NON-LINÉAIRES dans une région de l'ionosphère traversée par
les deux ondes.

Note the emphasized words. Non-linearity of the D-layer of the
ionosphere is quite well understood today. In fact, most of the
initial mechanism was known before the Second World War. In the
late 1940's and in the 1950's, theories were improved as different
modes of propagation were studied. Today we find that this
ionospheric cross modulation effect has become a tool to study the
lower ionosphere.

For some good reading on this subject, I suggest reading "An
Introduction to the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere" by John Ashworth
Ratcliffe. Much of this book can be read using Google Book Search.
Another work found on the Web is the PhD dissertation of Mehmet
Kürsad Demirkol from Stanford University
(http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/pu...kolThesis.pdf).
Quoting from his abstract:

Electron density and temperature changes in the D-region are
sensitively manifested as changes in the amplitude and phase
of subionospheric Very Low Frequency (VLF) signals
propagating beneath the perturbed region. Both localized and
large scale disturbances (either in electron density or
temperature) in the D-region cause significant scattering of
VLF waves propagating in the earth-ionosphere waveguide,
leading to measurable changes in the amplitude and phase of
the VLF waves. Large scale auroral disturbances, associated
with intensification of the auroral electrojet, as well as
ionospheric disturbances produced during relativistic
electron enhancements, cause characteristic changes over
relatively long time scales that allow the assessment of the
'ambient' ionosphere. Localized ionospheric disturbances are
also produced by powerful HF transmitting facilities such as
the High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS) facility, the High
frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP*), and also by
lightning discharges. Amplitude and phase changes of VLF
waveguide signals scattered from such artificially heated
ionospheric patches are known to be detectable.

Nowhere in all of the respected literature will you find frequency
doubling caused by the two ends of a dipole.

So I do not have to read the above.

In fact, the end
"balls" of Hertz's experiments were nothing more than capacitance
hats. The experiment would have worked perfectly well without them.

It is impossible to make the dipole without ends.

You have pushed the patience to the breaking point of many of this
newsgroup's readers, including some experts far more knowledgeable
in electromagnetics than myself. Expletives from these people,
while certainly deserved, are not needed. Until Szczepan does his
research on ionospheric cross modulation, I suggest that we just
ignore him (or use a killfile).

I encourage ALL you to make proper experiments with the "frequency doubling
caused by the two ends of a dipole."
See discussion with Wim:

"Hello Szczepan,

You are right, charge is compressible. The charge that is required to
charge (for example) a sphere seems

Seems or unquestionable?

to break the coninuity equition as
is used for incompressible fluid in hydraulics.

Continuity in electromagnetism is regained by introducing the D-field
(dielectric displacement). The D-field is responsible for the
capacitive current in case of varying E-field.

So in your products is the dielectric displacement or compressed electrons?

Regarding frequency doubling. We can be lucky. Antennas and
propagation behaves in virtually all cases linearly. From linear
systems you might know that input and output frequency are the same,
so no doubling in frequency.

Try understand me. Your Hertz dipole emits electrc waves from the TWO ends
(opposite phases). So the electrons in a receiving antenna are kicked twice
more frequent.

In case of non-linear parts in a system (for example a corroded
connector in an antenna cable that is used by two or more
transmitters, that may behave as a semiconductor), you might get so
called mixer products (sum frequencies, harmonics, difference
frequencies, etc).

Harmonics may be the reason that nobody have seen the Phenomenon.

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.

EM existing over 100 years and will be used the next as the "piece to
teach".
Your business base on experiments.
Now You have the opportunity to make the most famous experiment in the
history.
If the result will be null I will change my hobby."
S*


--
73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ


* This group is also not the place to bring up conspiracy theories
involving this research program.