"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*

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!

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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)

"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*

"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*

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