RadioBanter - Corriolis force

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - Corriolis force (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/146389-corriolis-force.html)

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 6:37 pm, "christofire" wrote:

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.

the key with the coriolis effect is that the earth turns under something
that is moving north or south at different rates. it doesn't affect what is
moving, that still follows normal physics... so basically something launched
from the equator going north will have a higher velocity to the east than an
observer north of it so it will appear to bend to the east. it really
didn't, its just that the observer didn't move fast enough to keep up with
it. that is why it is an 'effect' and not a 'force'. the object travels in
a normal ballistic path as if the earth wasn't there once it leaves the
launching point... so if you shine your laser north from the equator it will
'appear' to bend east, but if it did actually follow the earth's curvature
it would only very slightly miss the north pole.

On Sep 5, 6:02*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
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

I have always followed the particle approach over the EM route. The
reason I have followed this path is that Gauss's law dictates it and
computer programs support it. There has been no move to doubt programs
so I assume they are according to Maxwell and the errors are else
where. So let's go back and leave these assertions that have been
erroniously pointed at me and look at the Gaussian/ Maxwell
observation which I have pursued. I have posted the original statement
and look for those who have expertise in the area to post their views
and why. So Jimmie you have been prolific with your thoughts and
insults, allow us to view the mechanics of what ever decision you make
whether it is a repeat of David or one that shows your own method of
thinking.
Thanks in advance
Art
Dave has posted his reasons why he feels my assertion is false

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
So let's go back and leave these assertions that have been
erroniously pointed at me and look at the Gaussian/ Maxwell
observation which I have pursued.

see, he still doesn't understand that Gauss's law is one of the 4 basic
Maxwell equations, always has been and always will be... without his extra
time parameter or anything else. he thinks he has discovered something new
by adding Gauss's law with time into the equations.

On Sep 5, 5:37*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

Chris I assume that you have a computer with an optimizer so you are
aware that it will follow the intent of Maxwells laws. And if you
allow it to do this the input should not be designed for planar forms
but allow the optimizer to do its thing. When it finishes it will
provide a response of 100 percent accountabilityYou know this because
maxwells laws account for all forces such that it then provides a
tipped radiator But if you feel it is operator error then what did
your program supply with that input or is it you do not own or use an
optimizer which seems to be prevalent on this newsgroup. Sooooooo
address the statement made by me and provide an academic response
since all posted on this subject comes back to that simple statement I
made. All the other postings are distortions that have run amoke such
that nobody knows the subject of debate and it has become a joke. Your
input to the statement I am sure from your comments will be academic
in form and greatly appreciated. I am winding this thread down now as
statement made are being attributed to me which is false and errors
are piling up on errors

Dave wrote:

the key with the coriolis effect is that the earth turns under something
that is moving north or south at different rates. it doesn't affect
what is moving, that still follows normal physics...

That is correct. And effect is so much better a word than "force".

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Art is trying to convince us that ... in fact all physics is completely wrong.

How many years and thousands of postings did it take to come to that
observation?

Well whaddya expect when all my electrons were replaced this morning.
Some of them got a little messed up.....

Now I'm working on a way to get the particles that leave my antennas to
be replaced with gold instead of more particles of Aluminum or copper.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
So now we have left science, and as far as I can tell, have entered
religion.

Everything I said is supported by the laws of physics
as we presently understand them.

Great. Show me the cites that all the particles that leave an antenna
are immediately replaced.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.

Somewhere somehow mass must be transferred under your system. Particles
leave and particles come.

It isn't just that energy is supplied to the antenna from the radio,
which gets these particles from the electricity provided to it, which
gets it's voltage from something.

Somewhere along the line something has to lose mass, unless magic or
supernatural forces are involved. How does the mass from the last thing
in the chain go back to the first thing in the chain?

-73 de Mike N3LI -

Art wrote:
"Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth."

Quick! Tell your local broadcaster.

We don`t need theory to show that antennas for transmitters and
receivers work best together when they are exactly parallel in space
unless something in the transmission path is redirecting the
polarization of the signal. In aligning microwave antennas humdreds of
times, I`ll swear this is true every time, regarfless of Corriolis, no
matter which side of the equator I was on. Try it. You`ll be convinced
too.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI