"Dave" wrote in message
news

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
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*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated by
the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there is no
frequency doubling as you explain it.

.... and the so-called 'Luxembourg effect' is not frequency doubling but
cross modulation; that is, generation in the ionosphere of intermodulation
products that carry the modulation of both sources. Third-order IPs are
usually much more important than harmonics when they fall in the same band
as one or more of the generating signals.

Chris

"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?


* Yes: the late John D Kraus. He was a practical engineer as well as a
theoretician and his native language was English. He managed to put into
practice a lot of the theory that others had written about and he recorded
his work lucidly. I've already named two of Kraus's books - can you cite
something written by any of your favourites that provides clear explanations
that you understand? Answers.com doesn't explain anything technical.


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.


* Heaviside's documentation is appaling! I remember going through a
catalogue of his work in an effort to get to the truth about the origin of
the 'Heaviside condition' - a lot of it was written in obfuscation babble, a
bit like some of the contributors to this group.



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.

* Why don't you look into horn louspeakers and then report back. You may
find them fascinating and very unlike dipoles.

Chris





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*

"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 7:00 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* 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.
------------

The NEC computer programs are not in error. The error is in
understanding how far-field patterns develop.

Art, please read the following link about "tipped verticals," which
hopefully will lead to a better understanding of this issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...74e9df6d9d1aa9

RF


* Richard, thank you for that. I stand by what I have stated in several
places earlier in this thread, that if tipping-over a monopole or dipole
results in more gain in one direction then that will be counteracted by less
gain in another direction (i.e. azimuth) as your eznec pattern illustrates.
There is also the question of polarisation purity.

Chris

On Sep 6, 4:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 6, 3:02*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
Now for your eznec set up. If it were me I would not quit so early but
at least try to fill a quadrant so you can determine a step that
appears logical
-------
If you understood NEC programs and the underlying physical principles
on which they are based, Art, you would realize that the graphic
comparison I posted represents the BEST CASE for those two
conditions. Average performance over a quadrant is even worse.

If you have another "step" that appears logical to you, and which you
think proves your point, I'll be happy to model it if you will supply
acceptable details.

But from your point of view, you'd have been better off not making
such a statement.

RF

On Sep 6, 5:18*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 6, 4:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 6, 3:02*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
Now for your eznec set up. If it were me I would not quit so early but
at least try to fill a quadrant so you can determine a step that
appears logical

-------
If you understood NEC programs and the underlying physical principles
on which they are based, Art, you would realize that the graphic
comparison I posted represents the BEST CASE for those two
conditions. *Average performance over a quadrant is even worse.

If you have another "step" that appears logical to you, and which you
think proves your point, I'll be happy to model it if you will supply
acceptable details.

But from your point of view, you'd have been better off not making
such a statement.

RF

Ok I will drop it,
that way I an be called in error and not arrogant
At last the end

On Sep 6, 5:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, JIMMIE wrote:





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.

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.

Dear Group:
I applaud the suggestion to read my mentor's book on Antennas (any
edition) to gain an understanding. The clarity of his writing is the best
that I have found. However, recently a collaborator of Professor Kraus has
written a small, inexpensive book just explaining Maxwell's compilation of
equations.

Consider the purchase and study of: "A Student's Guide to Maxwell's
Equations" by Daniel Fleisch. ISBN is 978-0-521-70147-1 The publisher is
Cambridge University Press. Amazon has the book for about $23.

73, Mac N8TT
--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:

I managed to clip "stuff" and attributions.



* Yes: the late John D Kraus. He was a practical engineer as well as a
theoretician and his native language was English. He managed to put into
practice a lot of the theory that others had written about and he recorded
his work lucidly. I've already named two of Kraus's books - can you cite
something written by any of your favorites that provides clear
explanations that you understand? Answers.com doesn't explain anything
technical.





* 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.

Art wrote:
"I thought you had a trackrecord in academics so you had an
understanding of Maxwell`s laws."

Maxwell`s equations are necessary and sufficient to describe radiation
from any antenna. I long ago suggested in this newsgroup that Art read a
fine book, "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith,Jr., now reprinted by Scitech Publishing Inc.

In the first chapter Griffith gives a brief history of electrical
knowledge. On page 3 he says:

"We had, for instance, Coulomb`s law, relating to electric charge and
the mechanical force it produces; Ampere`s Rule, connecting current and
magnetism; Gauss` law, giving the relationship between electric charge
and the field of the electric potential; Ohm`s law, relating voltage,
current, and resistance; and Faraday`s law, concerning the relationship
between the magnetic field and the induced voltage. Nothing seemed to
tie these miscellanious relationships together, althoigh they appeared
to pertain to the same general subject.

Perhaps it was the working of a fateful pattern, perhaps mere
coincidennce, that there was born in the same year that Faraday made his
great discovery the man who was destined to correlate and organize all
these separate rules into the modern electromagnetic theory."

"Maxwell`s Generalization"

This posting is long enough so I`ll stop.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
Dear Group:
I applaud the suggestion to read my mentor's book on Antennas (any
edition) to gain an understanding. The clarity of his writing is the best
that I have found. However, recently a collaborator of Professor Kraus
has written a small, inexpensive book just explaining Maxwell's
compilation of equations.

Consider the purchase and study of: "A Student's Guide to Maxwell's
Equations" by Daniel Fleisch. ISBN is 978-0-521-70147-1 The publisher
is Cambridge University Press. Amazon has the book for about $23.

73, Mac N8TT
--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:

I managed to clip "stuff" and attributions.

.... which I've further clipped (Chris).


* Thank you Mac. A voice of sense in the wilderness!

I'm aware that Fleisch collaborated with Kraus to compile the third edition
of 'Antennas: for all applications' classified as ISBN 13: 978-0-07-112240-5
and ISBN 10: 0-07-112240-0. In my view this is one of the clearest editions
of 'Antennas' so his guide to Maxwell's equations will certainly be worth
investigating.

I found another, rather unexpected, source of lucid practical application of
some of Maxwell's equations in a book that may be the 'bible' for those
involved professionally in VHF/UHF aeronautical communications: 'Ultra High
Frequency Propagation' by Reed, H.R. and Russell, C.M., Boston Technical
Publishers, of which I have the second edition from1966. Chapter 4 therein.
I bought my copy from one of the on-line second-hand book stores for
something like 8 UKP. I recommend it to all who read this news group - it
really is lucid on lots of matters of antennas and propagation, and not just
at UHF.

Chris

On Sep 6, 5:53*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 6, 5:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, JIMMIE wrote:

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.

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

If you have the academic background then post at the point of the
problem. If not enjoy the Sun- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No problem and no point.

Jimmie

Well Jimmie it is very interesting so far. Two academics who came
forwards
presented a real clue on our differences which allows us to
concentrate on a single factor.
The point that they are making is that this is a rare exception to the
ability of turning a static field into a dynamic field ! This is the
single point of disagreement on the validity of the starting of the
trail that I undertook. Those two are comfortable with the
understanding of Gauss and Maxwell where others were unsure. So the
task is now simple which allows others to join in. What in this
situation makes it different to other situations that does not allow a
transformation to a dynamic field which is the norm of Classical
Physics.
Short, clear, and to the point which is all inclusive to the
discussion. It wipes out all the side talk and accusation of arragance
and the use of the term babble when one cannot understand points
made . I am real happy these two came forward because it essentially
has high lighted our differences upon which we can concentrate on.
What in terms of Classical Physics that is placed forward by these two
prevents the change over to a dynamic field? Maybe they will tell us
or maybe it is for the individual to identify which and what is
correct and why.
Progress at last!
After all these years after discussion between suedo experts shooting
from the hip and hitting themselves in the foot.