"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.

"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*

"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.

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

"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*

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

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

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

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

"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