Art Unwin wrote:
Maybe but waves are an adjective ...

An ocean "wave" is an adjective?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

christofire wrote:


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



I'd noticed you weren't posting very much lately. Well, I hope you're
experiments, of whatever sort they might be, continue and that you tell
us about them over in the other group.

Good luck!

tom
K0TAR

Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm also missing the citations about how mass is removed and gained from
antennas at the same time.

I gave those a few postings ago. Here they are again.

e = mc^2 energy supplied by the source

m = e/c^2 mass lost to radiation

--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Dave" wrote
...

"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!

Almost nobody read this famous. Here is the list:
http://www.df.lth.se/~snorkelf/Longitudinal/node4.html

Time for writting such is over. Now people produce the antennas and do not
worry who from giants is right. They use empirical methods.

Each of them proposed the version different from the known. The result is
like that:

"In this chapter we have analysed the Ampere electrodynamics and compared it
with the Maxwell stress approach. We have seen how these are two sides of
the same coin -- one focusing on charge carriers, and the other on the field
properties. The forces predicted are of the same magnitude as the well known
pinch forces, but act in other directions."

I prefer Ampere - you Maxwell. Nothing wrong.
S*

"christofire" wrote
...

"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.

So you should be able to repeat the phenomena. Richard did not: " 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."

Help him.
S*

"christofire" wrote
...

"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.

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.


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.

He is the father of the hydraulic analogy where the electricity is the
incompressble masless flud.
Electrons in antenns are compressible and have mass. What is electricity in
J. D. Kraus?


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.

The horn is a monopole. See:
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/rad2/mdq.html
The unboxed loudspeaker is a dipole.

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

Like fascinating is the two monopoles antennas (your dipoles).
S*

Chris

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote
...

"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.

So you should be able to repeat the phenomena. Richard did not: " 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."

Help him.
S*


Huh?

What Richard wrote means he didn't encounter frequency doubling but he did
try to cause cross modulation, as in the 'Luxembourg effect'.

What I wrote doesn't conflict with that.

Perhaps it's a language difficulty on your part.

Chris

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
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


I like the statement that the electrons in one's house wiring are mostly the
same ones that were there when the house was built (or last re-wired).

'Charge' is a funny one though - a bit like debt, it can take effect almost
instantaneously (does debt travel at the speed of light - I guess it often
does nowadays).

Chris

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm also missing the citations about how mass is removed and gained
from antennas at the same time.

I gave those a few postings ago. Here they are again.

e = mc^2 energy supplied by the source

m = e/c^2 mass lost to radiation

That isn't a cite, that's a formula.

So I guess that you apply the idea that photons have mass.

Never mind.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

-- snip --

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.

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.

* No, that's quite wrong. Practical engineers use mathematics a great deal.
Amateurs may not, but they're not all engineers. To make a statement like
that it would appear you have never worked successfully as a practical
engineer using the conventional definition of 'engineer': a person trained
in any branch of engineering.


* 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.

He is the father of the hydraulic analogy where the electricity is the
incompressble masless flud.
Electrons in antenns are compressible and have mass. What is electricity
in J. D. Kraus?

* It's the passage of charge through conductors, the same as it is
everywhere else, of course. Compressibilty of electrons doesn't feateure in
any of Kraus's books that I've read, which must mean it is not a necessary
concept for normal, physical, antennas and propagation.


* 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.

The horn is a monopole. See:
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/rad2/mdq.html
The unboxed loudspeaker is a dipole.

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

Like fascinating is the two monopoles antennas (your dipoles).
S*

* You claimed that EM waves are longitudinal, like sound waves, and you used
some comparison between a loudspeaker and a dipole as justification. So now
you understand that not all loudspeakers behave that way ... so what? Do
you still believe EM waves are longitudinal or have you changed your mind?
If you believe Dan Russell then where on his site does he state that EM
waves are longitudinal? Of course, he doesn't.

On second thought, don't bother replying - this dialogue is going nowhere
and is a waste of our time.

Chris