"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
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;

Ampere do not connect current and magnetism. For Ampere (and Gauss, Weber
and many others) magnetism is an illusion.

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."

The same means the one. Which of the three: gravity, electricity and
magnetism?


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."

He corelated not all but only the two. In EM the two exist. We need
eliminate the two from the three.

"Maxwell`s Generalization"

This posting is long enough so I`ll stop.

The most important is: "althoigh they appeared to pertain to the same
general subject."
Art is trying to organize them.
It seems to me that he (like many of you) discovered that antennas radiated
something from the ends.
Do you see it also?
S*

"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
Szczepan wrote:
"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 logitudinal component? Many respected authors, such as
Kraus, have illustrated the cintrary."

Add Terman to Kraus. On page 1 of Terman`s 1955 opus Terman says:
"Electrical energy that has escaped into free space exists in the form
of electromagtnetic waves. These waves, which are commonly called radio
waves, travel with the velocity of light and consist of mahnetic and
electric fields that are at right angles to each other and also at right
angles to the direction of travel."

Szczepan also wrote: You should see the Luxembourg effect (frequency
foubling) and directional pattern."

That would interest me. I worked four years in a European shortwave
broadcast station and I don`t remember any frequency doubling but we
aspired to hit the ionosphere with enough power to drive it into extreme
nonlinearity end impose our signal en all the others in the area ala
Luxembourg.

You have read too lot. Mike is right: "It's a lot easier to argue these
points without references"

Hertz did not hit the ionosphere. Look at his apparatus:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

You know that "According to theory, if electromagnetic waves were spreading
from the oscillator sparks, they would induce a current in the loop that
would send sparks across the gap."

According to EM theory the frequency is one and no the lobs in directional
patern.

But you can assume that the capacitor plates are the two seperate sources of
electric waves (of course not in phase).
In such case the frequency in the receiver will be its orientation
dependent. But there are only the two possibilities: the same or doubled.
Similar will be with the directional patern. There has place the normal
interference.

Of course the monopole antennas are free from such phenomenon. What are with
dipole arrays I do not know. People from a phase radar know.

Not all vertical dipole exhibit it. The both ends must be above a landscape.
The famous Luxembourg mast was on the tip of a mount.
The Warsaw was on flat so the effect was obserwed only in Austria mountains.

This is only one theory among many (choosen by teachers to teach the math):
"These waves, which are commonly called radio waves, travel with the
velocity of light and consist of mahnetic and electric fields that are at
right angles to each other and also at right angles to the direction of
travel."

Each famous scientist wrote his own Electrodynamics.
Best regards,S*

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
Gain is not a factor in equilibrium so why muddy up the question. Or
is that being arrogant
because you disagree with me LOL


Oops missed one right in front of my lying eyes.

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic.

3) no gain.

4) polarization purity.

tom
K0TAR

isotropic == no gain
so you can take one of them off the list.

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:
"Equilibrium is when there is no gain."

I for one appreciate that statement because from my standpoint it is the
first intelligible statement I remember from Art defining "equilibrium".
If you tip a ground-mounted vertical antenna, you lose "equilibrium"
because you disrort its normal omnidirectional pattern. The result is a
gain in some directions and a loss in others. Gain and directivity are
two sides of the same coin.

Light beams and radio beams are very similiar except light is visible.
I`ve seen no gravitational effects on light beams and were radio waves
visible, I`d wager you would see no gravitational effects on them
either. The same for the Coriolis effect.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


look at the plots, when you tip it you reduce the vertical null so you are
making it less directive. remember, the ham 'omnidirectional' use means
only in 2 dimensions... art has taken the leap to 3 dimensions!

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Each famous scientist wrote his own Electrodynamics.
Best regards,S*

i think you and art should get together and write one, it is sure to be a
best seller for years! i would buy one just to read when i need a good
laugh!

Art Unwin wrote:
What you refer to as a photon I refer to as a particle

So do I. "The photon is the gauge boson for electro-
magnetism." Particles are easier to understand than fields.
According to quantum (particle) physics, everything that
exists in reality is a particle, i.e. everything that exists
is quantized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model

Would you have it that a capacitor retains
protons which is a particle?

A capacitor retains electrons which can be collected
on a capacitor plate. (Photons cannot stand still and,
by definition, always travel at the speed of light in
the particular medium. This includes photons in standing
waves.)

"In the Standard Model of particle physics, electrons belong
to the group of subatomic particles called leptons ..."

With my analysis it has a trail but yours seem to be just snippets.

My snippets are sections from the standard model about
which I will choose to stand on the shoulders of giants.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"tom" wrote in message
. net...

--snip--

This getting to be as bad as the s.p.fusion and s.p.relativity groups.

Heck, Chris makes a lot more sense (s.p.fusion) and actually learns
things, provides results and admits mistakes while he tries to build his
fusion reactor in a London flat. He still claims the govt has
lobotimized him several times and "it grows back", but other than that
he's quite sane. Unlike Art and Szczpan.

tom
K0TAR


* Remarkably, Tom, you're quite correct in your assessment!

What am I doing here?

Chris

You're that Chris? If so, welcome. Your videos are very interesting, as
are your experiments.

tom
K0TAR


Tom, no I can't masquerade as someone else. I live near London, I'm not
building a reactor (at the moment) and I think I'm quite sane.

The reason I'm here is simply the presence of 'antenna' in the name of the
NG but I've been aware throughout my career that this topic is subject to
charlatans and cranks perhaps more than any other topic in electronic
engineering. That's probably because the majority on non-academics have
trouble thinking 3-dimensionally which makes vector calculus very difficult
which, in turn, makes Maxwell's equations difficult to comprehend and apply.
The fraud squad appear to seize this opportunity and use it as a
smokescreen!

Chris

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
christofire wrote:

* You haven't cited a reference.

It's a lot easier to argue these points without references. ;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


.... you're right, it's utterly breathtaking!

Chris

Art Unwin wrote:
Interesting you
quote the electron gun. ... So where did this photon emerge from?

The electron is the gun, the photons are the bullets.
Quoting Feynman's "QED": "So now, I present to you the
three basic actions, from which all of the phenomena
of light and electrons arise.

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

For an RF antenna radiator, the electrons go from
place to place in (on) the conductor in the form
of free electrons. The photons go from place to place
in the space surrounding the conductor. Only the
photons can move at the speed of light from the
feedpoint to the ends of a dipole. Electrons move
hardly at all.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dave wrote:

isotropic == no gain
so you can take one of them off the list.

You are correct sir.

Art's equilibrium nuggets.

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic/no gain.

3) polarization purity.