On Sep 6, 8:57*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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

But if it is full wave it is a tank circuit which does not radiate in
both half cycles but in pulses
as Planck states. It only radiates when the capacitive field
intersects with a magnetic field.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

photons are and always have ben particles!

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 ?

yes, i would also have it retain electrons. but i would not have it retain
photons.

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

So you are saying they are one and the same where a wave is a
adjective describing the action of a spining particle. Interesting you
quote the electron gun. We have an electron
without a spin and certainly not with the speed of light. So we supply
a electrostatic field which intersects a magnetic field. When this
electron ,particle proton or what ever enters the area betwean the
capacitive plates. At that time the article ( not to take sides)
starts to accelerate under the influence of both fields such that it
takes on a parabolic spin.
When it exits this combined field it obviously takes a straight line
projection with spin.
Now without the fields influence we move beyond acceleration where
the speed can be determined. It is proven that it is a certain speed
that was later determined as also the speed of light. So, we have a
beam which is certainly not of a wave but a stream of particles which
operate at the same speed as light. Very interesting. This moves away
from Rutherford wave theory. Along comes the slit experiment which
then sways back thought to the wave theory which is a convenient wy of
saying it is undecided.
Now we have the slit antenna that sways the argument back to particles
which has a connection to light and spin and the acelerration of
charge. No where has the propasition of a photons being around is
stated. Now you state that a photon exists dependent on the rate of
spin to shed light So where did this photon emerge from?
It certainly did not come from mass as that can only happen when the
nucleus of an atom is torn apart as you point out with a atomic
explosion which is the result of what is called the Strong force and
that is not happening. So if you provide an answer to the posted
question posed on Gauss and Maxwell we can then follow on to explore
your reasoning. But you must start from somewhere that is accordance
with accepted laws. I have done that where you have not. So the
question posted is salient to this whole discussion and your education
suggests you are up to the task so what is it that you are uneasy
about?

Dave wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

photons are and always have ben particles!

Umm, no, photons are "particle like" and at the same time "wave like".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 6, 12:00*pm, wrote:
Dave wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
....
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

photons are and always have ben particles!

Umm, no, photons are "particle like" and at the same time "wave like".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Maybe but waves are an adjective where as particle is a noun. Yes a
cluster or a swarm
may move together that has the appearance of waves which also can be
seen as a swarm of particles but again root of discussion must be a
noun. An accelerated beam is that of a single particle action that is
repeated. The particle alone cannot act as a wave unless it has
another particle that can be seen as a datum.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
We have an electron without a spin and certainly not with the speed of
light.

you can't have an electron without spin, it always has the same spin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

snip a bunch of incoherent babbling

So where did this photon emerge from?
It certainly did not come from mass as that can only happen when the
nucleus of an atom is torn apart as you point out with a atomic
explosion which is the result of what is called the Strong force and
that is not happening.

ever hear of electrons changing state and emitting photons? or the
photoelectric effect?? neither require strong force or nuclear reactions.

On Sep 6, 11:37*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

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

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.

photons are and always have ben particles!

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 ?

yes, i would also have it retain electrons. *but i would not have it retain
photons.

So the question remains where does a photon come from if it is not an
internal function of a free electron. Frankly the capacitor suggests
that the photon is a charge possesed by
a free electron. So again we are back to the Gauss/Maxwell question.
Cecil does has a track record with his degree and more important his
MENSA membership but he is having problems with the photon. particle
problem which lies with the Gauss/ Maxwell question.
Einstein insinuated that the weak force is part of radiation and I
have applied my theorem to that. But I can't persue other theorems
until the Gauss/maxwell question is resolved by those with a track
record and not just intuition.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...


The particle alone cannot act as a wave unless it has
another particle that can be seen as a datum.

go read up on single photon diffraction experiments and see if you still
think it takes multiple photons to act as a wave.

"christofire" wrote
news

"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.

" Oliver Heaviside criticised Helmholtz' electromagnetic theory because it
allowed the existence of longitudinal waves" .From:
http://www.answers.com/topic/hermann-von-helmholtz

Do you know somebody who has more proven reputation in acoustic and
electrodynamics than Helmholtz?
Hertz was the pupil of Helmholtz.
The Maxwell's equations (that from 1864) was the same like the Helmholtz'
for fluid mechanics.
Many textbooks inform us that it was a big Maxwell's mistake. He ignored
atomic nature of electricity disovered by Faraday at electrolise. Helmholtz
not ignored it.
Maxwell (modified by Heaviside) is only a piece to teach the math.


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.

Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the two
sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see the
Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

On Sep 5, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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.