Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 1, 2:39*am, Szczepan Białek 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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Art Unwin" wrote ... On Jun 1, 2:39 am, Szczepan Białek 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* |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Szczepan Białek 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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Cecil Moore" wrote ... Szczepan Białek 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 |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Szczepan Białek 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! |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Platt" wrote ... In article , Szczepan Białek 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* |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote ... On Jun 1, 2:39 am, Szczepan Białek 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. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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* |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
spots | Antenna | |||
Sun Spots | Shortwave | |||
Sun Spots During an Ice Age? | Antenna | |||
Waiting for 'spots... | CB |