"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"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.

only if you are still living in the 1800's.

Exactly in 1638:

"1638 - Rene Descartes theorizes that light is a pressure wave through the
second of his three types of matter of which the universe is made. He
invents properties of this fluid that make it possible to calculate the
reflection and refraction of light. The ``modern'' notion of the aether is
born. " From: http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node4.html

The next:

"1717 - Newton shows that the ``two-ness'' of double refraction clearly
rules out light being aether waves. (All aether wave theories were
sound-like, so Newton was right; longitudinal waves can't be polarized.) "

In the History you find how many people analysed the issue: longitudinal
vs. transversal. In 1905 all stop.
But after 1905 peole build antennas. And they do not worry what the
radiation is like.
Sunner or later the issue appears again.
S*

only when time travelers bring back scientists from the 1800's... or people
like you try to reinvent the discarded theories of old.

Dave wrote:

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

The only reason for Maxwell model is the light polarisation. In
his era the polarisation was explained with transverse waves. Now
we know (from Clark) that the apparatus is polarised not waves.
Regards,
S*

i knew getting you and art together would be interesting... good
for a whole evening full of laughs! the waves must be polarized to
interact as observed with polarized antennas.

But here are the two possibilities.
1. The dipole radiates the transverse wave from centre,
2. The dipole radiate the two COUPLED longitudinal waves from the
two ends.

In the both cases the antennas (emitting and receiving) must be
parallel.
Which place radiate the radio waves?
S*

the whole antenna radiates.

But what radiate? Magnetic whirls or pressure-like electric wave?
S*
magnets don't whirl and 'electric waves' are not like pressure... they
magnetic and electric field vectors are at right angles to each other
and the direction of propagation... both the electric and magnetic
components are needed for propagation... you can't have one without the
other.

It's hard to tell, but he's probably referring to the curl of a
magnetic field which he obviously doesn't understand. The idea of
a "pressure-like electric wave" is pure fantasy.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Tom Donaly" wrote
...
Dave wrote:

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...


But what radiate? Magnetic whirls or pressure-like electric wave?
S*
magnets don't whirl and 'electric waves' are not like pressure... they
magnetic and electric field vectors are at right angles to each other and
the direction of propagation... both the electric and magnetic components
are needed for propagation... you can't have one without the other.

It's hard to tell, but he's probably referring to the curl of a
magnetic field which he obviously doesn't understand. The idea of
a "pressure-like electric wave" is pure fantasy.

There is the fantastic example:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an14.en.html
S*

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

In the History you find how many people analysed the issue: longitudinal
vs. transversal. In 1905 all stop.
But after 1905 peole build antennas. And they do not worry what the
radiation is like.
Sunner or later the issue appears again.
S*

only when time travelers bring back scientists from the 1800's... or
people like you try to reinvent the discarded theories of old.

Some theories are taught some not. But people after 25 can use what they
want. It seems to me that engineering people do not use the EM theory.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Tom Donaly" wrote
...
Dave wrote:

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...


But what radiate? Magnetic whirls or pressure-like electric wave?
S*
magnets don't whirl and 'electric waves' are not like pressure... they
magnetic and electric field vectors are at right angles to each other
and the direction of propagation... both the electric and magnetic
components are needed for propagation... you can't have one without the
other.

It's hard to tell, but he's probably referring to the curl of a
magnetic field which he obviously doesn't understand. The idea of
a "pressure-like electric wave" is pure fantasy.

There is the fantastic example:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an14.en.html
S*


and how are you misinterpreting what that is showing?

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

In the History you find how many people analysed the issue:
longitudinal vs. transversal. In 1905 all stop.
But after 1905 peole build antennas. And they do not worry what the
radiation is like.
Sunner or later the issue appears again.
S*

only when time travelers bring back scientists from the 1800's... or
people like you try to reinvent the discarded theories of old.

Some theories are taught some not. But people after 25 can use what they
want. It seems to me that engineering people do not use the EM theory.
S*


Theories that aren't taught have probably been dropped for a good reason.
usually because they are wrong or don't do anything useful. I don't know
about other engineers but i use EM theory, all my antennas were designed
using it, and i test it regularly with my own equipment... it has never
failed me.

You do not use the EM theory. In EM no electrons. You use electrons:
"Electronics is a branch of science and technology that deals with the flow
of electrons through nonmetallic conductors, mainly semiconductors such as
silicon. It is distinct from electrical science and technology, which deal
with the flow of electrons and other charge carriers through metal
conductors such as copper. This distinction started around 1906 with the
invention by Lee De Forest of the triode. Until 1950 this field was called
"radio technology" because its principal application was the design and
theory of radio transmitters, receivers and vacuum tubes."

Electrons never failed us.

S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

In the History you find how many people analysed the issue:
longitudinal vs. transversal. In 1905 all stop.
But after 1905 peole build antennas. And they do not worry what the
radiation is like.
Sunner or later the issue appears again.
S*

only when time travelers bring back scientists from the 1800's... or
people like you try to reinvent the discarded theories of old.

Some theories are taught some not. But people after 25 can use what
they want. It seems to me that engineering people do not use the EM
theory.
S*


Theories that aren't taught have probably been dropped for a good reason.
usually because they are wrong or don't do anything useful. I don't know
about other engineers but i use EM theory, all my antennas were designed
using it, and i test it regularly with my own equipment... it has never
failed me.

You do not use the EM theory. In EM no electrons. You use electrons:
"Electronics is a branch of science and technology that deals with the
flow of electrons through nonmetallic conductors, mainly semiconductors
such as silicon. It is distinct from electrical science and technology,
which deal with the flow of electrons and other charge carriers through
metal conductors such as copper. This distinction started around 1906 with
the invention by Lee De Forest of the triode. Until 1950 this field was
called "radio technology" because its principal application was the design
and theory of radio transmitters, receivers and vacuum tubes."

Electrons never failed us.

if you want to talk with MODERN engineers, then you should use MODERN
definitions. i don't know who wrote that wikipedia definition but you would
find it very hard to work with just non-metalic stuff in the electronics I
know. even the smallest integrated circuits use metalic conductors to
connect components and for connections to the outside world. All radios
(aren't radios electronic) use metallic antennas in one form or another...
check some other definitions:

the branch of physics that deals with the emission and effects of electrons
and with the use of electronic devices
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

electronic - of or relating to electronics; concerned with or using devices
that operate on principles governing the behavior of electrons; "electronic
devices"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

the branch of technology concerned with the development and application of
circuits or systems using electron devices, including magnetic amplifiers,
transistors
http://www.tki.org.nz/r/technology/c...m/p85_86_e.php

electronic - Pertaining to the energies, distributions, and behaviors of
electrons; see mechanical.
e-drexler.com/d/06/00/Nanosystems/glossary/glossary_e.html

do not 'electronic devices' include transformers?? aren't most of them made
out of metallic conductors?? what about capacitors, don't most of them have
metallic plates? magnetic amplifiers are most definately made of metallic
conductors.

EM or ElectroMagnetic theory does indeed include charged particles.
Maxwell's equations are definately based on charged particles. just where
does the 'i' term come from if not from moving charges? and where does the
charge term in art's favorite Gauss' law that is part of Maxwell's equations
come from if not from charged particles??

"Dave" wrote
news

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message


There is the fantastic example:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an14.en.html
S*


and how are you misinterpreting what that is showing?

It seems to me that the radiating elements radiate from the ends.
Is it misinterpreting?
S*

"Dave" wrote
...


EM or ElectroMagnetic theory does indeed include charged particles.
Maxwell's equations are definately based on charged particles. just where
does the 'i' term come from if not from moving charges?

Take a glance in Maxwell's Treatise. There is the incompressible massles
fluid.
Maxwell did the math to Faraday ideas. But with one exception. Faraday
discovered the atomic nature of electricity (at electrolise).
Maxwell ignored it. He prefered fluids and whirls. Todays teachers also
prefere it.

and where does the charge term in art's favorite Gauss' law that is part of
Maxwell's equations come from if not from charged particles??

Each genius wrote his own Electrodynamics. They are in some points similar.
But the incompressible fluid is only in Maxwell's.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
news

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message


There is the fantastic example:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an14.en.html
S*


and how are you misinterpreting what that is showing?

It seems to me that the radiating elements radiate from the ends.
Is it misinterpreting?
S*
you are misinterpreting what they are trying to show in the simplified
drawings of the pattern and phasing animation.