Sun Spots
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
So Art is looking for the next theory. It is a good way to know the
results of experiments. Maxwell did not see the antenas. You all do. Tell
than us which part radiate the radio waves.

art is just babbling.

which part radiates?? the whole thing radiates of course.

Earilier you wrote: "according to Maxwell's equations as
supported by detailed observations and calculations over the last 100 years
or more, accelerating charges create radiation. "

In the Hertz apparatus the charges (electrons) have at the centre the max
velocity and the acceleration equal zero.
At ends the situation is opposite. So your answer should be: "the ends
radiate of course".

It is very funny that engineers use electrons and do not know that in the
"Maxwell's equations" no electrons, There is incompressible massless fluid.
You here do not use the "Maxwell's equations". The teachers use them to
teach math.
Engineers use the empirical equations following the rule "accelerating
charges create radiation".
S*

Sun Spots
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:43:45 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:
"Dave" wrote
.. .
both, and neither,
which part radiate the radio waves.

I can see a struggle developing here between you and Art as to who has
the claim to wear the cap and bells.

Dale wrote " Neither seems to have an interest in real world antennas. "

I have "an interest in real world antennas. " But only in the fundamental
evidences of wave propagation.
I am not preparing the new theory. The Your engineering theory suits me.
That from physics textbooks not.
In physics is the hydraulic analogy. It is usefull for DC. For high
frequences not. But Maxwell PROPOSED such model for HF.
After his death the electrons vere discovered. So Maxwell did not create
equations for electrons. Engineers use the empirical ones.
S*

Sun Spots
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
In the Hertz apparatus the charges (electrons) have at the centre the max
velocity and the acceleration equal zero.
At ends the situation is opposite. So your answer should be: "the ends
radiate of course".

of course you are wrong. there is a smooth transition between the center
and the ends, that whole length radiates. you can't just look at the
boundry conditions, you have to consider the whole length.


It is very funny that engineers use electrons and do not know that in the
"Maxwell's equations" no electrons, There is incompressible massless
fluid.
You here do not use the "Maxwell's equations". The teachers use them to
teach math.
Engineers use the empirical equations following the rule "accelerating
charges create radiation".

Gauss's law is about charged particles, the one art so much likes to
distort.. and don't forget that the 'i' term is also about charged
particles moving... if they can move they are not imcompressible, and since
the force on them can be measured and accelerations are not infinite they
are not massless.

Sun Spots
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.

Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a
reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If
you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to.

come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics".

can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to handwave
and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the core of all
your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that answer the rest of
your posts are just empty shells. give us this magical "Gauss's law of
Statics" that you base everything on!

Sun Spots
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
It is very funny that engineers use electrons and do not know that in
the "Maxwell's equations" no electrons, There is incompressible massless
fluid.

i.e. not quantized - which, strangely enough, leads to
Maxwell's equations predicting results that are impossible
to achieve in reality. Planck's constant is indivisible.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

Dave wrote:

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
In the Hertz apparatus the charges (electrons) have at the centre the
max velocity and the acceleration equal zero.
At ends the situation is opposite. So your answer should be: "the ends
radiate of course".

of course you are wrong. there is a smooth transition between the
center and the ends, that whole length radiates. you can't just look at
the boundry conditions, you have to consider the whole length.

Doesn't NEC use the method of moments (MoM) which deals
with total current and isn't total current maximum at the
feedpoint (middle) of a 1/2WL dipole where the maximum
acceleration of electrons is taking place?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

On Sun, 31 May 2009 11:41:33 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

In physics is the hydraulic analogy.
... Maxwell PROPOSED such model for HF.

Was Maxwell working SSB on the wrong part of the 40M band? He
probably had the greenest lawn on the block.

I'm sorry, fellows, but this seems to be at least one fall out of
those speculated three, and with no prospects of getting up. Reminds
me of an old commercial for those emergency necklaces.....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sun Spots
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
In the Hertz apparatus the charges (electrons) have at the centre the max
velocity and the acceleration equal zero.
At ends the situation is opposite. So your answer should be: "the ends
radiate of course".

of course you are wrong. there is a smooth transition between the center
and the ends, that whole length radiates. you can't just look at the
boundry conditions, you have to consider the whole length.

Yes. But the radiation is not uniform. What radiate stronger: the centre or
the ends?


It is very funny that engineers use electrons and do not know that in the
"Maxwell's equations" no electrons, There is incompressible massless
fluid.
You here do not use the "Maxwell's equations". The teachers use them to
teach math.
Engineers use the empirical equations following the rule "accelerating
charges create radiation".

Gauss's law is about charged particles, the one art so much likes to
distort.. and don't forget that the 'i' term is also about charged
particles moving... if they can move they are not imcompressible, and
since the force on them can be measured and accelerations are not infinite
they are not massless.

We all know now that the electrons are "not imcompressible, and since
the force on them can be measured and accelerations are not infinite they
are not massless." But do you know what the electricity was like in the
Maxwell theory from 1865?
S*

Sun Spots
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Sun, 31 May 2009 11:41:33 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

In physics is the hydraulic analogy.
... Maxwell PROPOSED such model for HF.

Was Maxwell working SSB on the wrong part of the 40M band? He
probably had the greenest lawn on the block.

I'm sorry, fellows, but this seems to be at least one fall out of
those speculated three, and with no prospects of getting up. Reminds
me of an old commercial for those emergency necklaces.....

Interesting English lesson.
S*

Sun Spots
 

On Sun, 31 May 2009 21:08:22 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

But do you know what the electricity was like in the
Maxwell theory from 1865?

It employed 20 equations with 20 unknowns. Can you name THREE?

Let's skip that, because you can not, of course.

It was recast as quaternions - I won't ask the impossible from you to
state TWO.

You have yet to manage how long it took for ONE electron to travel
end-to-end on Hertz's first loop.

So answering your questions is like sending Cuisinart to Darfur. Do
you know what electricity is like there? Any year?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sun Spots
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
In the Hertz apparatus the charges (electrons) have at the centre the
max velocity and the acceleration equal zero.
At ends the situation is opposite. So your answer should be: "the ends
radiate of course".

of course you are wrong. there is a smooth transition between the center
and the ends, that whole length radiates. you can't just look at the
boundry conditions, you have to consider the whole length.

Yes. But the radiation is not uniform. What radiate stronger: the centre
or the ends?

both. when the current is high in the center it is creating a stronger
magnetic field, and when that current reaches the end it creates the highest
voltage so makes more electric field... both are part of the
electro-magnetic wave.



It is very funny that engineers use electrons and do not know that in
the "Maxwell's equations" no electrons, There is incompressible massless
fluid.
You here do not use the "Maxwell's equations". The teachers use them to
teach math.
Engineers use the empirical equations following the rule "accelerating
charges create radiation".

Gauss's law is about charged particles, the one art so much likes to
distort.. and don't forget that the 'i' term is also about charged
particles moving... if they can move they are not imcompressible, and
since the force on them can be measured and accelerations are not
infinite they are not massless.

We all know now that the electrons are "not imcompressible, and since
the force on them can be measured and accelerations are not infinite they
are not massless."
But do you know what the electricity was like in the Maxwell theory from
1865?

sure, its the same as today. since his equations still work the electricity
hasn't changed.

Sun Spots
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.

Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a
reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If
you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to.

come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics".

can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to handwave
and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the core of
all your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that answer the
rest of your posts are just empty shells. give us this magical "Gauss's
law of Statics" that you base everything on!


come on art, one specific simple question...cite the specific reference for
"Gauss's law of Statics". or are you going to pull another vanishing act
and come back later just to start fresh with more bafflegab?

Sun Spots
 

On Sun, 31 May 2009 12:49:33 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Sun, 31 May 2009 21:08:22 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

But do you know what the electricity was like in the
Maxwell theory from 1865?

It employed 20 equations with 20 unknowns. Can you name THREE?

Let's skip that, because you can not, of course.

It was recast as quaternions - I won't ask the impossible from you to
state TWO.

You have yet to manage how long it took for ONE electron to travel
end-to-end on Hertz's first loop.

So answering your questions is like sending Cuisinart to Darfur. Do
you know what electricity is like there? Any year?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Another way to put this:

The actual mean drift velocity for electrons at any reasonable curent
is quite low because there are so many of them in the conductor.
However, the electric wave driving them propagates at he speed of
light appropriate for the medium.

W0BF

Sun Spots
 

Bruce W. Ellis wrote:
The actual mean drift velocity for electrons at any reasonable curent
is quite low because there are so many of them in the conductor.
However, the electric wave driving them propagates at he speed of
light appropriate for the medium.

The electrons move hardly at all at RF/AC frequencies.
On the average, they tend to oscillate mostly in place.
What travels at the speed of light are the photons
emitted by the oscillating electrons. The electrons
form the equivalent of a "bucket brigade" for the
photonic wave energy.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

On May 31, 5:28*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Bruce W. Ellis wrote:
The actual mean drift velocity for electrons at any reasonable curent
is quite low because there are so many of them in the conductor.
However, the electric wave driving them propagates at he speed of
light appropriate for the medium.

The electrons move hardly at all at RF/AC frequencies.
On the average, they tend to oscillate mostly in place.
What travels at the speed of light are the photons
emitted by the oscillating electrons. The electrons
form the equivalent of a "bucket brigade" for the
photonic wave energy.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
Does that mean that a radiator reduces mass with use
because the electrons orbiting around the atom are losing mass?
You are basically stating that an electron in orbit is travelling at
the speed of light
which thus imparts the same velocity to a photon which there fore also
has mass
since it has the same speed as the electron in orbit! Something wrong
there!

And for the other gentleman, what exactly is an electric wave?
Does it stay in place or does it leave the radiator?
Does it have mass such that the radiator gets lighter in use?
It is beginning to appear to me that hams are not sure what creats
radiation
and what constitutes radiation!
Art

Sun Spots
 

On May 31, 5:28*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Bruce W. Ellis wrote:
The actual mean drift velocity for electrons at any reasonable curent
is quite low because there are so many of them in the conductor.
However, the electric wave driving them propagates at he speed of
light appropriate for the medium.

The electrons move hardly at all at RF/AC frequencies.
On the average, they tend to oscillate mostly in place.
What travels at the speed of light are the photons
emitted by the oscillating electrons. The electrons
form the equivalent of a "bucket brigade" for the
photonic wave energy.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Gentleman,
People are so glib when they speak of the speed of light.
When a time varying current is applied to a conductor there are
several reactances involved by that conductor.
One of them has the same characteristic speed which is often
attributed to light. It is this characteristic speed of an item that
impacts another item and thus imparts the same speed to that which is
impacted. Obviously that which is impacted is responsible for the
emission of light when it enters a resistive medium as latent energy
is distributed during the transition from potential to kinetic energy.
It also posseses a charge which is accellerated! Does that ring a
bell? I suggest you investigate the speed of capacitor discharge first
to see if that is possibly the instigator of such high speed and move
on from there
Art

Sun Spots
 

On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:19:43 -0500, Bruce W. Ellis
wrote:

You have yet to manage how long it took for ONE electron to travel
end-to-end on Hertz's first loop.

Another way to put this:

The actual mean drift velocity for electrons at any reasonable curent
is quite low because there are so many of them in the conductor.
However, the electric wave driving them propagates at he speed of
light appropriate for the medium.

Hi Bruce,

Well put to the point above, but for my money Stephan probably
couldn't follow through to a numerical solution. Retirement appears
to have him drifting through newsgroups; gracing us all with the
enlightening questions of an acolyte pondering the eternal mysteries.
If he were a monk begging for rice, he would starve at this rate.

Art, on the other hand, is like a monk with a gallon of gas....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sun Spots
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

Do you really want 50 year old coax?

Hm-m-m Maybe not.


From sunspots to elephant cages. One small step for Art. One giant
leap for most of the newsgroup participants.

Luckily going OT isn't a felony or we'd all be doing some hard time.
Thanks for the nice pics.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)
CTMC/EWCS, USN (Ret.)

Sun Spots
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Sun, 31 May 2009 21:08:22 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

But do you know what the electricity was like in the
Maxwell theory from 1865?

It employed 20 equations with 20 unknowns. Can you name THREE?

Let's skip that, because you can not, of course.

It was recast as quaternions - I won't ask the impossible from you to
state TWO.

You have yet to manage how long it took for ONE electron to travel
end-to-end on Hertz's first loop.

So answering your questions is like sending Cuisinart to Darfur. Do
you know what electricity is like there? Any year?

"1861 - Maxwell publishes a mechanical model of the electromagnetic field.
Magnetic fields correspond to rotating vortices with idle wheels between
them and electric fields correspond to elastic displacements, hence
displacement currents. The equation for now becomes , where is the total
current, conduction plus displacement, and is conserved: . This addition
completes Maxwell's equations and it is now easy for him to derive the wave
equation exactly as done in our textbooks on electromagnetism and to note
that the speed of wave propagation was close to the measured speed of light.
Maxwell writes, ``We can scarcely avoid the inference that light in the
transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and
magnetic phenomena.'' Thomson, on the other hand, says of the displacement
current, ``(it is a) curious and ingenious, but not wholly tenable
hypothesis.''

"1864 - Maxwell reads a memoir before the Royal Society in which the
mechanical model is stripped away and just the equations remain. He also
discusses the vector and scalar potentials, using the Coulomb gauge. He
attributes physical significance to both of these potentials. He wants to
present the predictions of his theory on the subjects of reflection and
refraction, but the requirements of his mechanical model keep him from
finding the correct boundary conditions, so he never does this calculation."
From: http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node4.html

Try understand: "the mechanical model is stripped away and just the
equations remain."

Now engineers are using model with compressible, massive electrons. The
equations are used by teacher to teach the math.

According to Maxwell model the radio waves are transversal. Are such in your
radio reality?

S*
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sun Spots
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:19:43 -0500, Bruce W. Ellis
wrote:

You have yet to manage how long it took for ONE electron to travel
end-to-end on Hertz's first loop.

Another way to put this:

The actual mean drift velocity for electrons at any reasonable curent
is quite low because there are so many of them in the conductor.
However, the electric wave driving them propagates at he speed of
light appropriate for the medium.

Hi Bruce,

Well put to the point above, but for my money Stephan probably
couldn't follow through to a numerical solution. Retirement appears
to have him drifting through newsgroups; gracing us all with the
enlightening questions of an acolyte pondering the eternal mysteries.
If he were a monk begging for rice, he would starve at this rate.

Art, on the other hand, is like a monk with a gallon of gas....

You are right when you are writing about antennas and me. I hope that my
"enlightening questions" make that you (engineering people) start to press
on teachers to stop teaching about Maxwell model (transverse waves).
S*

Sun Spots
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
In the Hertz apparatus the charges (electrons) have at the centre the
max velocity and the acceleration equal zero.
At ends the situation is opposite. So your answer should be: "the ends
radiate of course".

of course you are wrong. there is a smooth transition between the
center and the ends, that whole length radiates. you can't just look at
the boundry conditions, you have to consider the whole length.

Yes. But the radiation is not uniform. What radiate stronger: the centre
or the ends?

both. when the current is high in the center it is creating a stronger
magnetic field, and when that current reaches the end it creates the
highest voltage so makes more electric field... both are part of the
electro-magnetic wave.

It is not Maxwell model. In it current create magnetic field and THIS field
create the electric field. AND SO ON.


It is very funny that engineers use electrons and do not know that in
the "Maxwell's equations" no electrons, There is incompressible
massless fluid.
You here do not use the "Maxwell's equations". The teachers use them to
teach math.
Engineers use the empirical equations following the rule "accelerating
charges create radiation".

Gauss's law is about charged particles, the one art so much likes to
distort.. and don't forget that the 'i' term is also about charged
particles moving... if they can move they are not imcompressible, and
since the force on them can be measured and accelerations are not
infinite they are not massless.

We all know now that the electrons are "not imcompressible, and since
the force on them can be measured and accelerations are not infinite
they are not massless."
But do you know what the electricity was like in the Maxwell theory from
1865?

sure, its the same as today. since his equations still work the
electricity hasn't changed.

"1864 - Maxwell reads a memoir before the Royal Society in which the
mechanical model is stripped away and just the equations remain. He also
discusses the vector and scalar potentials, using the Coulomb gauge. He
attributes physical significance to both of these potentials. He wants to
present the predictions of his theory on the subjects of reflection and
refraction, but the requirements of his mechanical model keep him from
finding the correct boundary conditions, so he never does this calculation"

Your (engineering people) model is O.K. but it is quite different from the
Maxwell model. This is the reason that Art can wrote: " "For your
information you have never built an antenna that conforms in its
entirety to Maxwell';s laws thus you cannot possibly understand
radiation as presented by Maxwell."
S*

Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Does that mean that a radiator reduces mass with use
because the electrons orbiting around the atom are losing mass?

Since mass and energy are equivalent, I suppose the mass
of the radiator increases with increasing power input.
The increase in mass can be calculated but the average
ham has no way of measuring the increase. No need to
worry about the tower falling down due to additional
mass from energized electrons. :-)

The antenna is charged up to a certain energy level
during the key-down transient state. Since the energy
content of the antenna cannot increase forever, it must lose
energy as photonic radiation and/or as heat during steady-state.

Free electrons in a conductor travel at much less than the
speed of light. Photons are emitted from the electrons at
the speed of light. A quote from:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpeedOfElectrons

"For example, for a copper wire of radius 1 mm carrying
a steady current of 10 Amps, the drift velocity is only
about 0.024 cm/sec!" i.e. about 0.01 inch/second. Ignoring
random movements, the electrons at our RF transmitter never
reach the antenna. At 10 MHz, the electrons move less than
0.000000001 inch during a 100 nS cycle involving a 100 watt
transmitter, i.e. they mostly oscillate in place.

However, other electrons, traveling at a large percentage
of the speed of light, are quite massive as observed in
particle accelerators and radioactive decay.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

On Jun 1, 2:39*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
*"Richard Clark" om...



On Sun, 31 May 2009 21:08:22 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

But do you know what the electricity was like in the
Maxwell theory from 1865?

It employed 20 equations *with 20 unknowns. *Can you name THREE?

Let's skip that, because you can not, of course.

It was recast as quaternions - I won't ask the impossible from you to
state TWO.

You have yet to manage how long it took for ONE electron to travel
end-to-end on Hertz's first loop.

So answering your questions is like sending Cuisinart to Darfur. *Do
you know what electricity is like there? *Any year?

"1861 *- *Maxwell publishes a mechanical model of the electromagnetic field.
Magnetic fields correspond to rotating vortices with idle wheels between
them and electric fields correspond to elastic displacements, hence
displacement currents. The equation for *now becomes , where *is the total
current, conduction plus displacement, and is conserved: . This addition
completes Maxwell's equations and it is now easy for him to derive the wave
equation exactly as done in our textbooks on electromagnetism and to note
that the speed of wave propagation was close to the measured speed of light.
Maxwell writes, ``We can scarcely avoid the inference that light in the
transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and
magnetic phenomena.'' Thomson, on the other hand, says of the displacement
current, ``(it is a) curious and ingenious, but not wholly tenable
hypothesis.''

"1864 *- *Maxwell reads a memoir before the Royal Society in which the
mechanical model is stripped away and just the equations remain. He also
discusses the vector and scalar potentials, using the Coulomb gauge. He
attributes physical significance to both of these potentials. He wants to
present the predictions of his theory on the subjects of reflection and
refraction, but the requirements of his mechanical model keep him from
finding the correct boundary conditions, so he never does this calculation."
From:http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node4.html

Try understand: "the mechanical model is stripped away and just the
equations remain."

*Now engineers are using model with compressible, massive electrons. The
equations are used by teacher to teach the math.

According to Maxwell model the radio waves are transversal. Are such in your
radio reality?

S*

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC



*img82.gif
1KViewDownload

*img91.gif
1KViewDownload

*img92.gif
1KViewDow
*img93.gif
1KViewDownload

Hi S,
Interesting to read what you say as there are many similarities to my
antenna work.
A small addition with respect to light formation. Displacement current
is the action required of three dimensional equilibrium which is why I
often point to the helicopter as an example,
same thing goes for a gyroscope or the Sedgway scooter. It is this
circular motion that holds to the understanding of light since this
provides the spin of a particle such that it has straight line
trajectory. The frequency of circular motion is what changes when the
particle
enters a medium that is resistive where the spin increases to maintain
the straight line projection. The energy for this increase in spin is
the latent energy that is removed from
the particles potential energy similar to latent heat with liquids.
Thus energy is conserved
by the increase in spin which is analogous to change in frequency!
This change in frequency brings the particle into the area of color ,
light and X rays ie higher frequencies and the latent energy shows up
as light until there is no more energy left and the particle has
vaporized such that light progresses to invisiblity. This being
similar to the effects shown of a meteorite as it comes into contact
with the resistive environment of Earth.
With respect to radiation from the ends of a radiator. This can only
happen when the radiator is a fraction of a wavelength when the law of
equilibrium is violated. The accellaration of charge at the end is
without spin applied and tho there is radiation it becomes non
directional and unable to overcome the gravitational force and falls
within a short distance.
Regards
Art

Sun Spots
 

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:57:22 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

I hope that my
"enlightening questions" make that you (engineering people) start to press
on teachers to stop teaching about Maxwell model (transverse waves).

The starving rice bowl monk at its best. Before your dreams come
true, little grasshoppa', you must first perform pennance at the gates
of the great Khan.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sun Spots
 

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:39:30 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

Are such in your radio reality?

Actually, grasshoppa', you have confused radio reality with the white
glare of the Xerox you stare into during meditation.

Please do not smear your forehead on the glass cover.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sun Spots
 

On Jun 1, 6:44*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Does that mean that a radiator reduces mass with use
because the electrons orbiting around the atom are losing mass?

Since mass and energy are equivalent, I suppose the mass
of the radiator increases with increasing power input.
The increase in mass can be calculated but the average
ham has no way of measuring the increase. No need to
worry about the tower falling down due to additional
mass from energized electrons. :-)

The antenna is charged up to a certain energy level
during the key-down transient state. Since the energy
content of the antenna cannot increase forever, it must lose
energy as photonic radiation and/or as heat during steady-state.

Free electrons in a conductor travel at much less than the
speed of light. Photons are emitted from the electrons at
the speed of light. A quote from:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpeedOfElectrons

"For example, for a copper wire of radius 1 mm carrying
a steady current of 10 Amps, the drift velocity is only
about 0.024 cm/sec!" i.e. about 0.01 inch/second. Ignoring
random movements, the electrons at our RF transmitter never
reach the antenna. At 10 MHz, the electrons move less than
0.000000001 inch during a 100 nS cycle involving a 100 watt
transmitter, i.e. they mostly oscillate in place.

However, other electrons, traveling at a large percentage
of the speed of light, are quite massive as observed in
particle accelerators and radioactive decay.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
The above is confusing unbound particles with bound particles both of
which can be considered a particle but only one has motion ie both
kinetic and potential energies where as the static partical only has
potential energy where the potential energy of both is equal.
The bound particle is in circular motion around a point source ala the
atom,
this collection of particles are in a state of three dimensional
equilibrium in relation to other similar clusters of particles which
provides a mass that in total is in static equilibrium
within its own boundary. If you supply energy to this mass in
equilibrium the frequency of rotation of particles increases and could
increase to the point of the frequency of light where, if it
continues, could become vaporised such that we now have a new medium
consisting of partial pressures of gasses.
The other particle when in equilibrium is at rest i.e unbound as has
lost a lot of potential energy in its voyage from the Sun ala the sun
spots. Energy is and can be added via electric energy where a
displacement current is formed such that the resting particle receives
the same amount of energy that it lost in its travels thru the
universe. The only difference between the two particles is the
boundaries in which they are seen to be enclosed in equilibrium ie
same potential energy but in different scalar form. ( two dimensional
compared to three dimensional equilibrium). I can only assume that
what you refer as a photon is the separation of latent energy with
respect to potential energy ie a separation of the energies associated
with the particle with spin
Regards
Art

Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:
The other particle when in equilibrium is at rest ...

Although it may be possible for an electron to be
"at rest", that concept violates the uncertainty
principle. Free electrons jump from atom to atom
but they are never in a fixed position until they
are measured in that fixed position in which case,
they give up their velocity/momentum as an unknown.

Whoever first said, "One cannot have one's cake
and eat it too." apparently understood the
uncertainty principle. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

On Jun 1, 11:51*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
The other particle when in equilibrium is at rest ...

Although it may be possible for an electron to be
"at rest", that concept violates the uncertainty
principle. Free electrons jump from atom to atom
but they are never in a fixed position until they
are measured in that fixed position in which case,
they give up their velocity/momentum as an unknown.

Whoever first said, "One cannot have one's cake
and eat it too." apparently understood the
uncertainty principle. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Then I am as uncertain about the uncertainty principle
as I am with the uncertainty Richard is projecting with his posts.
Nuff said
Art

Sun Spots
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Art Unwin wrote:
Does that mean that a radiator reduces mass with use
because the electrons orbiting around the atom are losing mass?

Since mass and energy are equivalent, I suppose the mass
of the radiator increases with increasing power input.
The increase in mass can be calculated but the average
ham has no way of measuring the increase. No need to
worry about the tower falling down due to additional
mass from energized electrons. :-)

The antenna is charged up to a certain energy level
during the key-down transient state. Since the energy
content of the antenna cannot increase forever, it must lose
energy as photonic radiation and/or as heat during steady-state.

Free electrons in a conductor travel at much less than the
speed of light. Photons are emitted from the electrons at
the speed of light. A quote from:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpeedOfElectrons

"For example, for a copper wire of radius 1 mm carrying
a steady current of 10 Amps, the drift velocity is only
about 0.024 cm/sec!" i.e. about 0.01 inch/second. Ignoring
random movements, the electrons at our RF transmitter never
reach the antenna. At 10 MHz, the electrons move less than
0.000000001 inch during a 100 nS cycle involving a 100 watt
transmitter, i.e. they mostly oscillate in place.

That are speculations only. Everybody know that at the end of an antenna the
high voltage appears. It means that density of electrons change. The
movements must be bigger.

However, other electrons, traveling at a large percentage
of the speed of light, are quite massive as observed in
particle accelerators and radioactive decay.

They escape from metal with the high velocity. Nobody know how velocity is
inside metal.
S*

Sun Spots
 

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:25:06 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

Nobody know how velocity is inside metal.

If you cannot sustain beyond this stage, your suits will sojourn as
somnolent susurrations such as the statement situated above.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sun Spots
 

On Jun 1, 1:25*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
*"Cecil Moore" om...



Art Unwin wrote:
Does that mean that a radiator reduces mass with use
because the electrons orbiting around the atom are losing mass?

Since mass and energy are equivalent, I suppose the mass
of the radiator increases with increasing power input.
The increase in mass can be calculated but the average
ham has no way of measuring the increase. No need to
worry about the tower falling down due to additional
mass from energized electrons. :-)

The antenna is charged up to a certain energy level
during the key-down transient state. Since the energy
content of the antenna cannot increase forever, it must lose
energy as photonic radiation and/or as heat during steady-state.

Free electrons in a conductor travel at much less than the
speed of light. Photons are emitted from the electrons at
the speed of light. A quote from:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpeedOfElectrons

"For example, for a copper wire of radius 1 mm carrying
a steady current of 10 Amps, the drift velocity is only
about 0.024 cm/sec!" i.e. about 0.01 inch/second. Ignoring
random movements, the electrons at our RF transmitter never
reach the antenna. At 10 MHz, the electrons move less than
0.000000001 inch during a 100 nS cycle involving a 100 watt
transmitter, i.e. they mostly oscillate in place.

That are speculations only. Everybody know that at the end of an antenna the
high voltage appears. It means that density of electrons change. The
movements must be bigger.



However, other electrons, traveling at a large percentage
of the speed of light, are quite massive as observed in
particle accelerators and radioactive decay.

They escape from metal with the high velocity. Nobody know how velocity is
inside metal.
S*

There is no "velocity " inside a radiator. There is a current flow on
the surface and when there is no skin effect at the ends of a radiator
that is not in equilibrium then the charge is free to flow off the
ends but without contra or levitating spin just like a helicopter when
one of its rotors comes to a stop. The rotor that is still turning
takes a spin increase like a motor start up with no load until a spark
is realised when the spin rotates at a particular frequency

Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:

When this experiment takes place it
suggests that radiation will really peak for a short time before we
all become incinerated.

I've arranged for the Neptune Society to handle all my incineration needs.

So how about those sun spot cycles?

ac6xg

Sun Spots
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Everybody know that at the end of an antenna
the high voltage appears. It means that density of electrons change. The
movements must be bigger.

Actually, the fact that they try to bunch up at the ends
of a standing wave antenna during part of the cycle implies
that they slow to a stop thus repelling other electrons and
have nowhere else to go except to reverse direction during
the next 1/2 cycle.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:25:06 +0200, Szczepan Bia³ek
wrote:


That are speculations only. Everybody know that at the end of an antenna the
high voltage appears.

Even for a controlled current distribution dipole?

Sun Spots
 

On Jun 1, 2:18*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* When this experiment takes place it

suggests that radiation will really peak for a short time before we
all become incinerated.

I've arranged for the Neptune Society to handle all my incineration needs..

So how about those sun spot cycles?

ac6xg

Looking better. Obama should have his new grid in place before the
next sun cycle so the lack of large sun spots are doing Mother Earth a
favor.
Regards
Art

Sun Spots
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

both. when the current is high in the center it is creating a stronger
magnetic field, and when that current reaches the end it creates the
highest voltage so makes more electric field... both are part of the
electro-magnetic wave.

It is not Maxwell model. In it current create magnetic field and THIS
field create the electric field. AND SO ON.

ah, you believe 'and so on'?? the 'so on' means the changing electric field
creates a magnetic field... both conditions are required for electromagnetic
propagation. without the time varying displacement current there would be
no propagation. so yes, you can create a magnetic field from the time
varying electric field.


Your (engineering people) model is O.K. but it is quite different from the
Maxwell model. This is the reason that Art can wrote: " "For your
information you have never built an antenna that conforms in its
entirety to Maxwell';s laws thus you cannot possibly understand
radiation as presented by Maxwell."

the maxwell equations completely describe radiation from an antenna, so all
antennas, even arts, 'conform' to the maxwell equations.

Sun Spots
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.

Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a
reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If
you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to.

come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics".

can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to
handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the
core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that
answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. give us this
magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on!


come on art, one specific simple question...cite the specific reference
for "Gauss's law of Statics". or are you going to pull another vanishing
act and come back later just to start fresh with more bafflegab?


thats right art, keep ignoring me... you can't answer the central question
that all your theory is built on, so that makes the rest of it just so much
more nonsense.

Sun Spots
 

On Jun 1, 6:09*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

...





"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.

Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a
reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". *If
you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to..

come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics"..

can't answer a specific simple question art?? *you much prefer to
handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the
core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. *without that
answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. *give us this
magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on!

come on art, one specific simple question...cite the specific reference
for "Gauss's law of Statics". *or are you going to pull another vanishing
act and come back later just to start fresh with more bafflegab?

thats right art, keep ignoring me... you can't answer the central question
that all your theory is built on, so that makes the rest of it just so much
more nonsense.

David
I am not ignoring you. I have responded to lots and lots of your
questions but you do not respond in kind. It started years ago with a
time varying current being applied to Gass's law of Statics and you
have rebelled to everything said since then, and not once have you
explained the definitive reasons as to why you reject all. As I have
said many times, I do not work for you. I am not in your employ. As
for Maxwell's equations, he accounted for all the forces involved in
the generation of radiation within the boundary of equilibrium. A Yagi
is not in equilibrium so the difference is chalk and cheese. Both
radiate ofcourse tho the sizes do differ as does the bandwidth as well
as the TOA but the point I am making is that if your radiation
assembly is not in equilibrium you are not following the tenents of
Maxwell. A very simple distinction as is the accelleration of the
charge contained by a departing particle compared to a wave of some
sort or energy content that is capable of a straight line projection
without interference from gravitational forces or progressions to the
existance of light, X rays, e.t.c.
Have a very happy day and sleep tight and don't get your knickers in a
twist
Regards
Art

Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 1, 6:44 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Does that mean that a radiator reduces mass with use
because the electrons orbiting around the atom are losing mass?
Since mass and energy are equivalent, I suppose the mass
of the radiator increases with increasing power input.
The increase in mass can be calculated but the average
ham has no way of measuring the increase. No need to
worry about the tower falling down due to additional
mass from energized electrons. :-)

The antenna is charged up to a certain energy level
during the key-down transient state. Since the energy
content of the antenna cannot increase forever, it must lose
energy as photonic radiation and/or as heat during steady-state.

Free electrons in a conductor travel at much less than the
speed of light. Photons are emitted from the electrons at
the speed of light. A quote from:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpeedOfElectrons

"For example, for a copper wire of radius 1 mm carrying
a steady current of 10 Amps, the drift velocity is only
about 0.024 cm/sec!" i.e. about 0.01 inch/second. Ignoring
random movements, the electrons at our RF transmitter never
reach the antenna. At 10 MHz, the electrons move less than
0.000000001 inch during a 100 nS cycle involving a 100 watt
transmitter, i.e. they mostly oscillate in place.

However, other electrons, traveling at a large percentage
of the speed of light, are quite massive as observed in
particle accelerators and radioactive decay.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
The above is confusing unbound particles with bound particles both of
snip
Good, but not one of your great Carrollesque.

this collection of particles are in a state of three dimensional
equilibrium in relation to other similar clusters of particles which
provides a mass that in total is in static equilibrium
within its own boundary. If you supply energy to this mass in
equilibrium the frequency of rotation of particles increases and could
increase to the point of the frequency of light where, if it
continues, could become vaporised such that we now have a new medium
consisting of partial pressures of gasses.

Just amazing in it's wrongness, but it could easily convince the
ignorant masses our schools now create. This is just incredible fiction!

How do you do it?

snip
Art

tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 1, 6:09 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

...





"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law.
Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a
reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If
you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to.
come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics".
can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to
handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the
core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that
answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. give us this
magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on!
come on art, one specific simple question...cite the specific reference
for "Gauss's law of Statics". or are you going to pull another vanishing
act and come back later just to start fresh with more bafflegab?
thats right art, keep ignoring me... you can't answer the central question
that all your theory is built on, so that makes the rest of it just so much
more nonsense.

David
I am not ignoring you. I have responded to lots and lots of your

Yes he is, and no he can't answer the question.

snip more of the normal nonsense

Have a very happy day and sleep tight and don't get your knickers in a
twist
Regards
Art

With total disregard
tom
K0TAR