Art Unwin wrote in news:58ff82c9-a4f0-461c-92da-
:

I am more familier with the Corriolis force as
it applies to weather. ÿIE: the spin of huricanes,
the rotation of weather around low pressure systems.

Excellent Gordon and the particles are connected to the weather
When particles arrive from outer space they reside on diamagnetic
substances and water is one.

Nope.
The Corilis Effect that I am familier with has nothing to do
with particles from outer space. It's just a mechanical
force related to the spin of the earth.

"Mike Coslo" wrote ...
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:03 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Mike you forget.
I do not subscribe to the wave theory over the particle aproach.
I cannot see any other way to fit that "radiation is from the
acceleration of a charge". And I can not find any explanation of this
in any books. Only mass is able to have spin and at the same time
transport energy, at least to my mind.
So are you saying that FR energy has mass, or that it doesn't have
spin?
Therefore accelaration is the
creation of two forces that are not in the same plain ala a shear
action where the combination of gravity and the Coriolis force are
the
weakest forces known in the std model.
What is the acceleration of RF?
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
The speed of light.
Acceleration isn't expressed as C.

Does RF energy have mass?

Yes if you see it as a particle and not a electromagnetic wave.

A test can be performed easily.

If RF energy has mass

It then follows that a transmitting antenna will lose mass.
Likewise, a receiving antenna will gain mass.

Mistake. In the halve of the cycle the both antennas lose mass and in the
next halve gain mass.

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.

We do have the needed resolution of measurement to make that test.

You must measure the mass after the halve of the cycle.
S*

"christofire" wrote
news

"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.

Maxwell ASSUMED that the aether is a solid body and ASSUMED that there are
the transversal waves. Next he do the math to it. To prove it he asks
Michelson to measure the movements of the Earth in this solid body. In 1878
(about) Michelson did not detect 30km/s. In 1925 he detect 0.4 km/s. It
means that the eather is not a solid body. The EM theory is only math (a
piece to teach).


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.

The first step should be dicovering which part of the oryginal Hertz dipole
radiate:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

The big sparks (current) or the plates (balls).
Note that todays dipoles are quite different. Now no current between the
tips.


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.

Why then the two loudspeaker and the two monopoles have the same directional
patern?


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.

Now Maxwell is avaiable on line. It is interesting to take a glance at them.
S*

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

-- snip --


* 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


* I have used NEC professionally and I am aware of some of the lower-cost
derivatives used by amateurs. What I stated before does not conflict with
my experience of using NEC - if I were to tip a vertical element then those
effects would result; there wouldn't be any general improvement in its
performance.

If the program you use shows increased coupling factor in all directions
when you tip a vertical monopole then it, and your interpretation of its
results, is in error. If you run an 'optimiser' and it yields such a result
then the error is widespread in your computing system. The simplest
analysis (using arithmetic) of a tipped-over monopole or dipole will
demonstrate that its pattern in the horizontal plane is no longer uniform so
whatever is gained in one direction is lost elsewhere.

I'm beginning to think that the issue is some kind of arrogance - certain
individuals purporting to know better than the conventional wisdom (when
they probably don't know much of the basics). But I don't really understand
why they do this. Perhaps the volume of responses in this NG is enough to
give them a feeling of importance and, I realise, I'm not helping by adding
to the bonfire!

Chris

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 20:30:30 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

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

Ummmm.... Faraday Rotation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect
It's not too horrible at microwave frequencies, but becomes noticeable
as the frequency decreases. I've done some crude polarization studies
at VHF and UHF frequencies with a rotating dipole, and found some
rotation on line of sight paths. However, we were looking for a
polarization distribution and didn't really spend any time getting
accurate numbers for a line of sight path.

* Fraday rotation is much greater in the ionosphere where there are more
free electrons, apparently. L-band and C-band links with geostationary
satellites use circular polarisation for this reason (as well as others when
a mobile terminal is involved) - the degree of twist is measured in turns.
At Ku-band it's down to a few degrees.


Also many broadcasters use elliptical polarization (a mix of
horizontal and vertical). However, that's not to eliminate any
Faraday Rotation effects. It's to deal with the effects of
reflections and refraction, which create nearly random polarization at
the receiving end. Also, because stationary broadcast antennas are
horizontally polarized, while vehicle mounted broadcast antennas are
usually vertical.

* In the UK, VHF FM radio was launched with horizontal polarisation mainly
because of a belief that vehicle-generated nois was predominantly vertically
polarised. This belief derived from an experiment, but the conclusion may
have contained an error. However, it was clear that VHF reception in
vehicles was impaired by this choice because a simple vehicular antenna is
vertically polarised. As vehicular reception grew, and when commercial
radio started at VHF, a vertical component was added to the transmitted
signal to improve matters. Nowadays, most of the transmitting antennas for
VHF FM radio provide 'mixed polarisation'.


I was once asked why the British drive on the left side of the road.
My instant answer was Coriolis Effect. I claimed that due to the
earth's rotation, it's easier to make left turns on the left side of
the Atlantic Ocean and easier to make right turns on the right side of
the Atlantic. It took an excessively long time for even the sharpest
student to catch the joke/hoax. Sigh.


* Isn't the real answer connected to knights in shining armour on their
horses and the side that they, traditionally, carried their jousting pole?
.... but where did the tradition come from? ... is that to do with the
traditional way a right-handed person mounts a horse?

Drivel: At 2.4GHz, most wi-fi wireless routers use vertically
polarized rubber ducky antennas. Yet, most laptops have their
antennas in the top of the LCD frame which are horizontally polarized.
Same with PCB antennas found on most PCMCIA cards.


* A vertical whip on a device with a horizontal chassis, and horizontal
power/data cables, probably radiates plenty of HP as well as VP. Years ago
(before the widespread use of normal-mode helix antenna) I worked on a
scheme that involved STC/ITT 'Starphone' hand-held transceivers. The
base-station antenna was VP but the handsets each contained a PCB loop
antenna where the axis of the loop was parallel with the long dimension of
the handset, that is, generally wrong! ... but the scheme worked quite well
and there was no chance of whip antennas getting broken.


Anyway, nobody cares much about antenna polarization:

* Well, some still do!

Chris


http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HC8B4F-AnCQF6I_u0k3MYg
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/LoopMtn03.html


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...


-- snip --


* 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.

Maxwell ASSUMED that the aether is a solid body and ASSUMED that there are
the transversal waves. Next he do the math to it. To prove it he asks
Michelson to measure the movements of the Earth in this solid body. In
1878 (about) Michelson did not detect 30km/s. In 1925 he detect 0.4 km/s.
It means that the eather is not a solid body. The EM theory is only math
(a piece to teach).

* You haven't cited a reference. The words you have written here do not
demonstrate that EM waves are longitudinal. A 'reference', if you didn't
understand the term, means a passage from a book or paper written by someone
who has a proven reputation for good, useful work in the field.


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.

The first step should be dicovering which part of the oryginal Hertz
dipole radiate:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

The big sparks (current) or the plates (balls).
Note that todays dipoles are quite different. Now no current between the
tips.


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.

Why then the two loudspeaker and the two monopoles have the same
directional patern?

* What 'two loudspeaker'? If you're drawing comparison between a
direct-radiator loudspeaker and a dipole and using that as a basis for
saying that EM waves are longitudinal, as I suspect you are, then you should
also consider a horn loudspeaker. Sound is radiated from the mouth of a
horn 'speaker and the other side of the compression driver diaphragm can be
totally enclosed. There is no simple comparison with a dipole antenna in
this case.




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.

Now Maxwell is avaiable on line. It is interesting to take a glance at
them.
S*

* It's even more interesting to read text books by writers such as Kraus who
have known provenance. Maxwell's equations are covered very well in his
books 'Antennas' and 'Electromagnetics' - I suggest you read them. It
appears a lot of what is published on the WWW is written by people who
haven't taken the time to learn the basic simple stuff; school pupils and
college students perhaps. You have to be very careful what you accept as
true when the internet is involved.

Chris

Art Unwin wrote:
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.

EM radiation waves *are* groups of quantized coherent
particles. It's called the wave/particle duality. If
one is expecting a wave, one detects a wave. If one
is expecting particles, one detects particles. In
reality, there is no difference between waves and
particles which existed long before man evolved.

If you will simply conceptually replace whatever particle
that you believe is blasted off the surface of a radiator
with a photon radiated by an energetic electron that
remains on the surface of the radiator, you will
have the presently accepted standard physics model.

For something resembling your concepts, one might say that
the RF source supplies the energy for the bullets fired
by the electron gun located on the surface of the radiator.
The gun didn't have any bullets before the source supplied
the energy for them. Once the electron gun is loaded,
Mother Nature pulls the trigger.

A photon at rest on a radiator is undetectable if it can
exist at all. The theory is that photons are created by
supplying energy to electrons. Photons are the method that
electrons use to shed their excess energy.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Mike Coslo wrote:
Somewhere along the line something has to lose mass, unless magic or
supernatural forces are involved.

You seem to be missing the fact of physics that mass
and energy are equivalent forms related by constants.

e = K1*m and m = K2*e

where K1 and K2 are constants.

For transmitting, there's nothing to prohibit mass from
being supplied in its equivalent energy form and then
lost from the antenna through radiated mass.

(energy in) = (mass in)c^2 = (energy out) = (mass out)c^2

When an atomic bomb goes off, mass is not lost - it simply
takes the form of an equivalent amount of energy which, if
we were smart enough, could be converted back to mass.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
In the halve of the cycle the both antennas lose mass and in
the next halve gain mass.

Actually, a radiator radiates equally during each
half cycle, i.e. it loses equal mass during each
half cycle.

Hint: think balanced transmission line with its
two equal differential currents. Electrons on the
balanced radiator are accelerated/decelerated
equally in either direction.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 6, 8:30*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
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.

EM radiation waves *are* groups of quantized coherent
particles. It's called the wave/particle duality. If
one is expecting a wave, one detects a wave. If one
is expecting particles, one detects particles. In
reality, there is no difference between waves and
particles which existed long before man evolved.

If you will simply conceptually replace whatever particle
that you believe is blasted off the surface of a radiator
with a photon radiated by an energetic electron that
remains on the surface of the radiator, you will
have the presently accepted standard physics model.

For something resembling your concepts, one might say that
the RF source supplies the energy for the bullets fired
by the electron gun located on the surface of the radiator.
The gun didn't have any bullets before the source supplied
the energy for them. Once the electron gun is loaded,
Mother Nature pulls the trigger.

A photon at rest on a radiator is undetectable if it can
exist at all. The theory is that photons are created by
supplying energy to electrons. Photons are the method that
electrons use to shed their excess energy.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

What you refer to as a photon I refer to as a particle
I refer to it as a particle because of the Gauss connection.
One can also use same with a capacitor where the particle
is retained between two diamagnetic surfaces and the
charge may transfer. Would you have it that a capacitor retains
protons which is a particle ?
With my analysis it has a trail but yours seem to be just snippets.
Perhaps you should provide a response to the Gauss/Maxwell thread
where only one academic has come out in favour of David, whereas all
others are unsure of the limits of the law on statics. I consider that
the beginning of my trail, so how does yours differ.
The thread is still there!

of a electrostatic field