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