"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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S*

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC



*img82.gif
1KViewDownload

*img91.gif
1KViewDownload

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

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

"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*

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

"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

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!

"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*

"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.

"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*

"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.