Sun Spots
 

On Jun 1, 9:14*pm, tom wrote:
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

I think it is convincing too.
Science is wonderfull when you connect every thing together and a
picture becomes visible. Same goes for cross word puzzles. My UK born
son was educated in American schools starting with Montessori. He now
earns a good living at La Hoya so education in America is not the
culprit for your observations. Maybe you are over estimating your own
abilities when comparing. However, now is your chance to correct the
"wrongness" that I quote.
I am all ears. After all you have won competitions with your antenna
designed but garnished from the many text books. Note that David is
now comfortable in giving displacement current some credit for
propagation so he must be younger than I thought
according to your interpretations. Now how does a wave traverse the
Earth without
collapsing? What is the connection to light? Does the "belts" that
surround the World act as breakwaters which accounts for the rainy
seasons?I suspect that it is explained in the books somewhere except
that somebody removed a page! Actually, I dreamt most of it and also
made antennas following the small print, and they worked ! Well at
least in my dreams. It must be a miracle. What do you think?
Art
Art

Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:

I think it is convincing too.
Science is wonderfull when you connect every thing together and a
picture becomes visible. Same goes for cross word puzzles. My UK born
son was educated in American schools starting with Montessori. He now
earns a good living at La Hoya so education in America is not the
culprit for your observations. Maybe you are over estimating your own
abilities when comparing. However, now is your chance to correct the
"wrongness" that I quote.
snip
Art
Art

You really don't get how science works, do you?

WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOU WRONG.

YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT.

You haven't done that.

In fact, you haven't even started to do that.

tom
K0TAR Not G and proud of it if Art is an example

Sun Spots
 

On Jun 1, 10:54*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

I think it is convincing too.
Science is wonderfull when you connect every thing together and a
picture becomes visible. Same goes for cross word puzzles. My UK born
son was educated in American schools starting with Montessori. He now
earns a good living at La Hoya so education in America is not the
culprit for your observations. Maybe you are over estimating your own
abilities when comparing. However, now is your chance to correct the
"wrongness" that I quote.
snip
Art
Art

You really don't get how science works, do you?

WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOU WRONG.

YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT.

You haven't done that.

In fact, you haven't even started to do that.

tom
K0TAR Not G and proud of it if Art is an example

Where does it say I have to prove it ?
Maxwell proved it 150 years ago, so why does it have to happen all
over again?
Either way, everybody says it can't work or it doesn't work so what
are you asking for, a drum roll? Why don't you write a book on
antennas like David so at last the truth is revealed with respect to
antennas. You could steal my thunder if I decided to become an author
If you are happy with what you have then be satisfied and live happily
ever after.
You have proved yourself a winner with the multiple antenna building
awards that you have
in the many shoot outs that you have entered. Isn't that enough for
you, the antenna king?
When you decided to pick a fight with me did you really believe I
would run away and hide?
Art
Art KB9MZ......xg ( uk) just for you Tom

Sun Spots
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
Sal M. Onella wrote:

Just a guess, but maybe it deals with the Wullenweber [or Wullenwever]
antenna, described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wullenweber and
elsewhere.


Actually, unlike Wullenweber, they have multiple concentric rings of
verticals in the array with a complex phasing system. My guess is that
this may have been a contributor to the methods eventually used in
phased array radars. But also something that was an engineering study,
and not necessarily practical.

Our Wullenweber at Hanza had two concentric rings of antennas, the high band
and the low band. And it did have a phasing system to form a beam. The
pattern was very sharp.

Oddly, most of what shows in a Wullenweber photograph isn't antennas, at
all, but the passive screens that give the array its characteristic of
seeing just off to one side. In some photos the ring of monopole antennas
can be tough to spot.

Unfortunately for this discussion, I didn't work in any of the DF shops. I
was in the Comm Shop -- crypto, TTY, telephone & mux maintenance. What I
learned about DF was just picked up along the way.

"Sal"

Sun Spots
 

"Registered User" wrote
...
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?

All time I am writing about the original Hertz apparatus. See:
(http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

There the ends of the dipole are named "capacitor plates". In the center of
the dipole the sparks jump. The question is which part of the Hertz
apparatus radiate? The capacitor plates (voltage pulses) or the sparks (AC
current).

AC current create the transverse waves. The capacitor plates (or balls)
longitudinal waves.
What are the radio waves: transversal or longitudinal?
S*

Sun Spots
 

"Art Unwin" wrote
...
On Jun 1, 2:39 am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

"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*

Hi S,
Interesting to read what you say as there are many similarities to my
antenna work.

Yes. But I do not try to work out a new theory. For me the 200 years old
"acoustic analogy" is enough.

A small addition with respect to light formation. Displacement current

Displacement current is necessary in the model with electricity in form of
the incompressible fluid. Incompressible fluid is a history.

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.

Straight line trajectory is normal phnomenon at the high frequences. The
ultrasonic waves are like radii (see sonar)

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.

Each new theory is very difficult for me. I prefer descriptions of
experiments and observations.


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.

Try the acoustic analogy. Here the all is easy. Quite opposite as in the
Maxwell model: "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".

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*

Sun Spots
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
AC current create the transverse waves. The capacitor plates (or balls)
longitudinal waves.
What are the radio waves: transversal or longitudinal?

The radial currents on the capacitor plates are 180
degrees out of phase. A lot of the radiation from the
plates simply cancels.

Ramo and Whinnery say that radiation is "primarily
TEM", i.e. TEM is the "principle mode".
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Displacement current is necessary in the model with electricity in form
of the incompressible fluid. Incompressible fluid is a history.

It may be that you are using a lumped-circuit model
when you should be using a distributed network model.
According to Drs. Corum, the lumped-circuit model
starts to fall apart at 15 degrees, i.e. 0/04WL.
These web pages may be of interest to you.

http://www.ttr.com/TELSIKS2001-MASTER-1.pdf

http://www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
AC current create the transverse waves. The capacitor plates (or balls)
longitudinal waves.
What are the radio waves: transversal or longitudinal?

The radial currents on the capacitor plates are 180
degrees out of phase. A lot of the radiation from the
plates simply cancels.

Electrical dipole radiation is known from Gauss time.
For us the two plates (or balls - Hertz used them also) are the two sources
of electric longitudinal waves.
For this reason in 1933 the frequency doubling was observed.

Ramo and Whinnery say that radiation is "primarily
TEM", i.e. TEM is the "principle mode".

It is easy to say. Tell me if you have ever seen the emitting antenna which
has the "current zone" exposed and the ends covered?
According to Maxwell the tranversal waves MUST be created by AC current. DC
current create the magnetic whirl. AC current create oscillating whirl. Such
oscillating whirl starts the transverse wave. But this Maxwell proposition
is not verified to now.
S*

Sun Spots
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Displacement current is necessary in the model with electricity in form
of the incompressible fluid. Incompressible fluid is a history.

It may be that you are using a lumped-circuit model
when you should be using a distributed network model.
According to Drs. Corum, the lumped-circuit model
starts to fall apart at 15 degrees, i.e. 0/04WL.
These web pages may be of interest to you.

http://www.ttr.com/TELSIKS2001-MASTER-1.pdf

http://www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm

There are details. For me interesting are only fundamentals.
It starts from:
"Maxwell wrote:
The conception of the propagation of transverse magnetic disturbances to the
exclusion of normal ones is distinctly set forth by Professor Faraday in his
"Thoughts on Ray Vibrations." The electromagnetic theory of light, as
proposed by him, is the same in substance as that which I have begun to
develop in this paper, except that in 1846 there were no data to calculate
the velocity of propagation." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_force

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.

S*






--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"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.

Maxwell equations were modified by Heaviside and the next.
Tell us if Maxwell model is O.K. (radio waves are the transverse waves).
S*

Sun Spots
 

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.

Remember, that when a responsible scientist proposes a theory, that
scientist tries as hard as possible to come up with ways to *dis*prove
the theory - that is, experiments which predict a testable result,
which differs from the predictions of other theories.

If the new theory can survive such testing, then it's got some meat on
its bones... and choosing it would make sense.

If it fails to survive the testing, it's wrong... and choosing it
would be mistaken.

If the scientist can't use the theory to make testable predictions,
it's useless... and choosing it would be futile.

If all of the predictions of the new theory are indistinguishable from
the predictions of prevailing theory, then perhaps it isn't really
new.. It may just be a restatement of the prevailing theory in
different words... and if so, choosing it would be entirely a matter
of taste or preference.

If the scientist won't even *try* to use the theory to make testable
predictions which might prove the theory wrong, then s/he isn't a
scientist.

So... how would *you* construct and measure an antenna (and perhaps
modify it and then measure again), in order to demonstrate that your
theory predicts the actual behavior of the antenna better than the
standard theory?

Here's a suggestion: start out with a model of a straight half-wave
dipole. Predict its radiation pattern and feedpoint impedance, based
on Maxwell's current-based theory and on your own voltage-at-the-end
theory. Measure the pattern and impedance.

Now, "bend" the antenna into different shapes. For example - leave
the center portion of the dipole in a straight line. Bend the ends in
various directions, shaping the antenna into a U, or into a Z, or a C
(with the tips close together but not touching). Shorten the center
section and split the ends, forming an H (e.g. short radiator with
capacity loads on each end).

In each case, predict the pattern and feedpoint impedance based on
Maxwell's theory and on your own.

Can you find cases in which the predictions vary? If so, which
matches the actual (measured) behavior of the antenna better?

Mathematical beauty is great... but if it doesn't predict the actual
behavior of real-world phenomena, it's just beautiful math.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Sun Spots
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote
...
On Jun 1, 2:39 am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

"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*

Hi S,
Interesting to read what you say as there are many similarities to my
antenna work.

Yes. But I do not try to work out a new theory. For me the 200 years old
"acoustic analogy" is enough.

A small addition with respect to light formation. Displacement current

Displacement current is necessary in the model with electricity in form of
the incompressible fluid. Incompressible fluid is a history.

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.

Straight line trajectory is normal phnomenon at the high frequences. The
ultrasonic waves are like radii (see sonar)

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.

Each new theory is very difficult for me. I prefer descriptions of
experiments and observations.


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.

Try the acoustic analogy. Here the all is easy. Quite opposite as in the
Maxwell model: "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".

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.

Sun Spots
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
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

I know, but its fun asking the one pertinent question that he can't answer.
he keeps saying i reject his addition of the (t) term to Gauss' Law, and
won't accept the answer that it is redundant since the law is not dependent
on time, it is true for all time. So the (t) is not necessary at best and
misleading at worst... you can put it there, but it doesn't mean anything...
its kind of like saying f(t)=f(t), a simple truism.

Sun Spots
 

Dave wrote:

"tom" wrote in message
snip
With total disregard
tom
K0TAR

I know, but its fun asking the one pertinent question that he can't
answer. he keeps saying i reject his addition of the (t) term to Gauss'
Law, and won't accept the answer that it is redundant since the law is
not dependent on time, it is true for all time. So the (t) is not
necessary at best and misleading at worst... you can put it there, but
it doesn't mean anything... its kind of like saying f(t)=f(t), a simple
truism.

I know, but I couldn't resist.

tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

Sal M. Onella wrote:


Our Wullenweber at Hanza had two concentric rings of antennas, the high band
and the low band. And it did have a phasing system to form a beam. The
pattern was very sharp.

In this system all antennas were active, and all were quarter wave
verticals at the design frequency.

Unfortunately for this discussion, I didn't work in any of the DF shops. I
was in the Comm Shop -- crypto, TTY, telephone & mux maintenance. What I
learned about DF was just picked up along the way.

Still, must have been interesting and fun with the variety you got to
deal with.

"Sal"


tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
Sal M. Onella wrote:

snip

Unfortunately for this discussion, I didn't work in any of the DF shops.
I
was in the Comm Shop -- crypto, TTY, telephone & mux maintenance. What
I
learned about DF was just picked up along the way.

Still, must have been interesting and fun with the variety you got to
deal with.

Absolutely! My first duty station was an intercept site in the Philippines,
then Hanza, then sea duty on an admiral's staff (Second Fleet Commander).
There wasn't much I hadn't seen by the time I was 25. I made CPO the next
year and was dubbed "The Teenage Chief" for my youthful appearance.

I'm 66 now and smiling slightly, content at how well things have worked out,
thanks to that lucky beginning.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

Sun Spots
 

"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*

Sun Spots
 

"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. In his model the transverse waves propagate in a solid
body. Maxwell devised many experiments. One of them was the famous MM
experiment. But Maxwell dead before the result.

Remember, that when a responsible scientist proposes a theory, that
scientist tries as hard as possible to come up with ways to *dis*prove
the theory - that is, experiments which predict a testable result,
which differs from the predictions of other theories.

Maxwell ended his life at 47. He was responsible but he had not enough time.

If the new theory can survive such testing, then it's got some meat on
its bones... and choosing it would make sense.

If it fails to survive the testing, it's wrong... and choosing it
would be mistaken.

The teachers choose it. The engineering people choose electrons.

If the scientist can't use the theory to make testable predictions,
it's useless... and choosing it would be futile.

It is the excelent "piece to teach".

If all of the predictions of the new theory are indistinguishable from
the predictions of prevailing theory, then perhaps it isn't really
new.. It may just be a restatement of the prevailing theory in
different words... and if so, choosing it would be entirely a matter
of taste or preference.

Maxwell theory was really new.

If the scientist won't even *try* to use the theory to make testable
predictions which might prove the theory wrong, then s/he isn't a
scientist.

Maxwell had not enough time to do it.

So... how would *you* construct and measure an antenna (and perhaps
modify it and then measure again), in order to demonstrate that your
theory predicts the actual behavior of the antenna better than the
standard theory?

Standard theory is the acoustic theory. All YOUR antennas demonstrate that
the acoustic analogy is O.K.

Here's a suggestion: start out with a model of a straight half-wave
dipole. Predict its radiation pattern and feedpoint impedance, based
on Maxwell's current-based theory and on your own voltage-at-the-end
theory. Measure the pattern and impedance.

I am here to encourage you all to do it.

Now, "bend" the antenna into different shapes. For example - leave
the center portion of the dipole in a straight line. Bend the ends in
various directions, shaping the antenna into a U, or into a Z, or a C
(with the tips close together but not touching). Shorten the center
section and split the ends, forming an H (e.g. short radiator with
capacity loads on each end).

In each case, predict the pattern and feedpoint impedance based on
Maxwell's theory and on your own.

Can you find cases in which the predictions vary? If so, which
matches the actual (measured) behavior of the antenna better?

I am sure that somebody young do it. Maxwell would be happy.

Mathematical beauty is great... but if it doesn't predict the actual
behavior of real-world phenomena, it's just beautiful math.

Math is still necessary in schools. But in this case the math will be saved.
The Maxwell equations were the same like the Helmholtz for the fluid
mechanics. Now the same math is taught in the two subjects (fluids and EM).
Very often the same teacher do it.
S*

Sun Spots
 

Sal M. Onella wrote:

I'm 66 now and smiling slightly, content at how well things have worked out,
thanks to that lucky beginning.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)



Thanks to you and everyone else for their service.

tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

All that bright Mississippi Sun and heat and humidity around here,
sometimes when I am working in my yard, I see Sun Spots in my eyes.
I am 67, or maybe 68 years young, I don't know how old I am.
It's RUFF on me!
cuhulin

Sun Spots
 

"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.

Sun Spots
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"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.

Maxwell equations were modified by Heaviside and the next.
Tell us if Maxwell model is O.K. (radio waves are the transverse waves).
S*


Maxwell is ok.

Sun Spots
 

"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.

Sun Spots
 

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:50:25 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

Maxwell is ok.

Heaviside rocks!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sun Spots
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
Sal M. Onella wrote:

I'm 66 now and smiling slightly, content at how well things have worked
out,
thanks to that lucky beginning.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)



Thanks to you and everyone else for their service.


You're certainly welcome but I have to say I got as much out of it as I put
in. The training, experience, maturity and travel were incomparable.
(Living conditions far from cruise ship standards, but it was usually
comfy.)

"Sal"

Sun Spots
 

"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*

Sun Spots
 

"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*

Sun Spots
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
But what radiate?

Particles called photons radiate. Photons are
emitted by decelerating electrons.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Sun Spots
 

"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.

Sun Spots
 

"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.

Sun Spots
 

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

Sun Spots
 

"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*

Sun Spots
 

"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*

Sun Spots
 

"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?

Sun Spots
 

"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*

Sun Spots
 

"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??

Sun Spots
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"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*

Sun Spots
 

"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*

Sun Spots
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"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.