On Sep 5, 2:28*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 9:44 am, Mike Coslo wrote:

The confirming experiment can be made by using a two small antennas in
an isolated environment. One is transmitting, and one receiving. If RF
energy is a particle - therefore mechanical force, the receiving antenna
must accumulate mass, and the transmitting antenna must lose it.
That is the presently accepted formula in science where atoms are
removed from the matrics of the radiator.
For me, all diamagnetic materials are completely covered with
particles that entered the solar stream from the Sun. As soon as they
are projected away from a radiator another takes its place, thus no
changes in mass.

what about my ferromagnetic radiators??? since they don't have your magical
levitating diamagnetic neutrinos they must constantly be losing mass and
will eventually fall apart!

And you are the role model that this group is in lockstep with? Pay
attention and stop manufacturing things

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote
...

Art is trying to convince us that EM energy is also a mechanical force,
consisting of particles that fly off the end of our antennas like
little turds. The ramifications of that means that everything we
thought we know about RF - and in fact all physics is completely wrong.

You have made a small mistake. Antennas are feed with the oscillating
voltage. So the little truds fly off and come back. It is normal
longitudinal wave.
The key problem is what radiate: the end of an antenna or something
else.
What do you think?
S*


No, you've made a mistake ... again. EM waves are transverse waves in
air (i.e. around a normal antenna) not longitudinal waves (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_wave).

EM waves by Maxwell are transverse waves. They are the paper waves. The
real electric waves are mainly longitudinal.

* Would you care to cite a reference where it is stated that EM waves in the
far field of a transmitting antenna contain a significant longitudinal
component? Many respected authors, such as Kraus, have illustrated the
contrary, but their work isn't limited to paper; people like Kraus have
designed real antennas of types that are still in use today.


Sound waves are longitudinal because air pressure is a scalar, whereas
electric and magnetic fields are vectors - they have polarisation.

The math has not to do here.

* What 'math'? ... just the mention of scalars and vectors, in a group
devoted to antennas. Please.


Here is the full acoustic analogy. The two loudspeakers work like the two
monopoles.

* Rubbish. What 'two loudspeakers'? Ever heard of a horn loudspeaker? ...
it produces longitudinal pressure waves.


Also, antennas that radiate are fed with alternating current. The
terminal voltage is almost immaterial in comparison with the current -
that's what causes the radiation.

If you want to discover what radiates I suggest you read one of the
normal text books on the subject, like Kraus 'Antennas', and stop making
up your own versions!

To discower what radiates will be better to do experiments with tipping of
monopole antenas.

* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris

christofire wrote:

* Would you care to cite a reference where it is stated that EM waves in the
far field of a transmitting antenna contain a significant longitudinal
component? Many respected authors, such as Kraus, have illustrated the
contrary, but their work isn't limited to paper; people like Kraus have
designed real antennas of types that are still in use today.
. . .

EM waves in an unbounded medium, far enough from a source to be in the
far field, have a longitudinal component only if the medium has loss. In
air, the fields are for all practical purposes purely transverse as
christofire says. Hence the descriptive name for the field orientation
as TEM for Transverse Electro-Magnetic. This is also true of some
bounded media such as coaxial cables, where again the fields are
transverse except for a usually small longitudinal component caused by
loss. But in other bounded media such as waveguides, one field or the
other (electric field in TM mode and magnetic in TE mode) can be
longitudinal. You'll also see a longitudinal component when a wave gets
close to lossy ground, although it's typically not large compared to the
total field.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Sep 5, 1:22*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of?
... its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture!

Photons are quantized elementary particles in the standard
model. Every time you see something, like this posting of mine,
you are capturing the photons incident upon your retina.

Double slit experiments with photons have been performed
with a single photon which apparently can go through both
slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the
other side. Those photon detectors indeed can capture
individual photons.

Photons are quite often generated and detected within
particle accelerators.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation?
It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come
from?
Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator
or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you
believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know.
Waves or particles.

On Sep 5, 3:17*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...





"christofire" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote
...

Art is trying to convince us that EM energy is also a mechanical force,
consisting of particles that fly off the end of our antennas like
little turds. The ramifications of that means that everything we
thought we know about RF - and in fact all physics is completely wrong.

You have made a small mistake. Antennas are feed with the oscillating
voltage. So the little truds fly off and come back. It is normal
longitudinal wave.
The key problem is what radiate: the end of an antenna or something
else.
What do you think?
S*

No, you've made a mistake ... again. *EM waves are transverse waves in
air (i.e. around a normal antenna) not longitudinal waves (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_wave).

EM waves by Maxwell are transverse waves. They are the paper waves. The
real electric waves are mainly longitudinal.

* Would you care to cite a reference where it is stated that EM waves in the
far field of a transmitting antenna contain a significant longitudinal
component? *Many respected authors, such as Kraus, have illustrated the
contrary, but their work isn't limited to paper; people like Kraus have
designed real antennas of types that are still in use today.

Sound waves are longitudinal because air pressure is a scalar, whereas
electric and magnetic fields are vectors - they have polarisation.

The math has not to do here.

* What 'math'? ... just the mention of scalars and vectors, in a group
devoted to antennas. *Please.

Here is the full acoustic analogy. The two loudspeakers work like the two
monopoles.

* Rubbish. *What 'two loudspeakers'? *Ever heard of a horn loudspeaker? ...
it produces longitudinal pressure waves.

Also, antennas that radiate are fed with alternating current. *The
terminal voltage is almost immaterial in comparison with the current -
that's what causes the radiation.

If you want to discover what radiates I suggest you read one of the
normal text books on the subject, like Kraus 'Antennas', and stop making
up your own versions!

To discower what radiates will be better to do experiments with tipping of
monopole antenas.

* Where do you get this stuff from? *Please visit a library - you could do
yourself a lot of good.
*Chris

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.
More to the point, it is common knoweledge that there is no full
understanding of radiation
available anywhere. Thus he is asking probing questions to fill in the
gaps.
Personaly I am not willing yet to say antenna programs are at fault
until more explanations come about. Can you explain what he is
commenting upon.?

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Sal M. Onella wrote:

Saint Edward of Massachusetts, aka Teddy Kennedy, was civil when it
suited
him but he engaged in the vilest of character assassination* the rest of
the
time. It didn't matter as long as he could cast his target upon the
trash
heap.

Sal, respectfully, as long as you and the folks who identify with you
try to turn every stinking conversation into a political bull****
throwing party against the damm leeburuls and socialists and commies,
You'll just make yourself look kind of well, maniacally obsessed.

Not a leebural, but tired off all that crap.

Just sayin'.

The crap is with us to stay. I didn't invent it. Recognizing it shouldn't
be an offense.

My response was to what I perceived to be an overly-idealistic viewpoint
about it. Politicians aren't statesmen -- they're simply opportunists.

Sal
Maniacal Obsessions a Specialty

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote:

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.

where do you put in the Coriolis effect or gravity direction in your
computer modeling program? i haven't seen one yet that let you put those
in, or even the latittude that could be used to derive the effect from.
without those you are just tipsy.

More to the point, it is common knoweledge that there is no full
understanding of radiation
available anywhere. Thus he is asking probing questions to fill in the
gaps.

you and him are the ones with gaps... the rest of us believe the hundred
plus years of experimental and practical evidence that says maxwell got it
right.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 9:30 am, Mike Coslo wrote:

Where on earth did you get that thought from.? Or is your intent to
mess up the minds of everybody? This line "Art is trying to convince
us that EM energy is also a mechanical force consisting of particles"
Where did you see that comment? As for things flying of the ends of
an antenna where did that idea come from?

are you now denying your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos from the
sun that get kicked off the antenna elements??

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

-- snip --


If you want to discover what radiates I suggest you read one of the
normal text books on the subject, like Kraus 'Antennas', and stop
making
up your own versions!

To discower what radiates will be better to do experiments with tipping
of
monopole antenas.

* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.


* I don't doubt that it is possible to obtain results from a computer
program that appear to contradict conventional theory. Interpretation of
what comes out is always the responsibility of the operator so, whilst
anyone can enter parameter values and hit 'go', not everyone will interpret
the results correctly. In this respect it must help greatly to have a clear
understanding of the basic principles of how antennas radiate and how the
modelling programs operate; in most cases how the moment method works. My
recommendation, as before, is to read an edition of 'Antennas' by Kraus (or
an equivalent), cover to cover, before trying to make sense of the output of
any antenna modelling program. Of course, I realise that some who 'publish'
here feel this would be beneath them, or too hard ... but, really, it is
neither.

My own take on the effect of tilting a vertical antenna is that if its
length is an appreciable fraction of a wavelength then tilting it will
distort its radiation pattern and will upset the uniformity of its
polarisation, which will impose a further effective radiation pattern. If
this results in a bit of gain in one particular direction with respect to a
particular polarisation then fine, and this may be of some use in amateur
radio service although it isn't how vertical monopoles are most often used
(i.e. their omni-directional pattern is their strength and there are many
other, better ways, to obtain directional patterns).

However, the theory on which all the well-known modelling programs is based
is the simple stuff described by Kraus, et al, and probably in most cases
follows from the original work that led to NEC
(http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf). It takes _no_ account of the
Coriolis force or gravity (outside of its impact on the speed of light). If
such a program produces output that the operator interprets as depending on
the Coriolis force then, logically, this must be a mistake on the part of
the operator - wouldn't you agree? However, if you believe the theory on
which the program is based is in error then maybe you shouldn't use it.


More to the point, it is common knoweledge that there is no full
understanding of radiation available anywhere. Thus he is asking probing
questions to fill in the
gaps.


* There is sufficient understanding of radiation and antennas out there, as
widely documented, to have enabled practical radio, radar, and suchlike for
more than a century. I understand that part of the point of amateur radio
is to encourage experimentation, but I don't understand why experimenters
should wish to shun the accepted, conventional theory and try to come up
with their own, perhaps paraphysical, versions - especially when those
people don't exhibit much understanding of the basics. Maybe they treat the
subject a bit like art (no pun intended) instead of the science that it
should be.


Personaly I am not willing yet to say antenna programs are at fault
until more explanations come about. Can you explain what he is
commenting upon.?


* It's possible he is being deliberately provocative.

Chris

On Sep 5, 6:37*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote: "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

-- snip --

If you want to discover what radiates I suggest you read one of the
normal text books on the subject, like Kraus 'Antennas', and stop
making
up your own versions!

To discower what radiates will be better to do experiments with tipping
of
monopole antenas.

* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.

* I don't doubt that it is possible to obtain results from a computer
program that appear to contradict conventional theory. *Interpretation of
what comes out is always the responsibility of the operator so, whilst
anyone can enter parameter values and hit 'go', not everyone will interpret
the results correctly. *In this respect it must help greatly to have a clear
understanding of the basic principles of how antennas radiate and how the
modelling programs operate; in most cases how the moment method works. *My
recommendation, as before, is to read an edition of 'Antennas' by Kraus (or
an equivalent), cover to cover, before trying to make sense of the output of
any antenna modelling program. *Of course, I realise that some who 'publish'
here feel this would be beneath them, or too hard ... but, really, it is
neither.

My own take on the effect of tilting a vertical antenna is that if its
length is an appreciable fraction of a wavelength then tilting it will
distort its radiation pattern and will upset the uniformity of its
polarisation, which will impose a further effective radiation pattern. *If
this results in a bit of gain in one particular direction with respect to a
particular polarisation then fine, and this may be of some use in amateur
radio service although it isn't how vertical monopoles are most often used
(i.e. their omni-directional pattern is their strength and there are many
other, better ways, to obtain directional patterns).

However, the theory on which all the well-known modelling programs is based
is the simple stuff described by Kraus, et al, and probably in most cases
follows from the original work that led to NEC
(http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf). *It takes _no_ account of the
Coriolis force or gravity (outside of its impact on the speed of light). *If
such a program produces output that the operator interprets as depending on
the Coriolis force then, logically, this must be a mistake on the part of
the operator - wouldn't you agree? *However, if you believe the theory on
which the program is based is in error then maybe you shouldn't use it.

More to the point, it is common knoweledge that there is no full
understanding of radiation available anywhere. Thus he is asking probing
questions to fill in the
gaps.

* There is sufficient understanding of radiation and antennas out there, as
widely documented, to have enabled practical radio, radar, and suchlike for
more than a century. *I understand that part of the point of amateur radio
is to encourage experimentation, but I don't understand why experimenters
should wish to shun the accepted, conventional theory and try to come up
with their own, perhaps paraphysical, versions - especially when those
people don't exhibit much understanding of the basics. *Maybe they treat the
subject a bit like art (no pun intended) instead of the science that it
should be.

Personaly I am not willing yet to say antenna programs are at fault
until more explanations come about. Can you explain what he is
commenting upon.?

* It's possible he is being deliberately provocative.

Chris

It is conceivable that the Coriolis effect may act upon EM radiation.
But given the speed of propagation of the radiowaves the effect would
truly be miniscule. I Art thinks the rotation of the earth has any
significant effect on EM propagation he should show some reference. Im
not going to hold my breath until that happens.

Jimmie