Corriolis force
 

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 -

Corriolis force
 

In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I forgot to connect my comments to the original question. Sorry(tm).
You're correct. There's no way to get a good isotropic radiator
pattern with a simple vertical radiator. However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

The difference in pattern between a half-wavelength dipole,
and an infinitesimally-short dipole (i.e. one whose length
approaches a point source) is actually quite small. Both are
torus-shaped patterns, with a deep null along the axis of the antenna
(theoretically, the null is infinitely deep directly along the axis).

An infinitesimally-short dipole has a maximum gain of 1.76 dBi.

A half-wavelength dipole has a gain of 2.15 dBi.

There really isn't much to distinguish the two, as far as the pattern
and gain go.

Unfortunately, the gain drops, efficiency drops, and feed point
impedance drops, resulting in a rather inferior antenna.

Yeah, the low radiation resistance and high reactance of the short
dipole are its biggest drawbacks.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Corriolis force
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:44:48 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .
However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

That doesn't sound right. The directivity gain of an infinitesimal electric
doublet (i.e. a dipole with infinitesimal length) is about 0.4 dB less than
that of a half-wave dipole.

I'll plug a series of shortened dipoles, possibly with loading coils,
into 4NEC2 and see what happens. You may be right.

As I recall, the big holes in the pattern, that are inline with the
elements gets smaller is diameter as the antenna gets electrically
smaller. The rounded circular donut pattern tends to flatten. I
wanna play with the models to be sure. This still begs the question
of how close to spherical does the pattern need to be in order to call
it isotropic? Dunno.

I was once told a true isotropic radiator would have to be circularly
polarised

"Near isotropic circularly polarized antenna"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=saMgAAAAEBAJ
CP satellite antenna used on Intelsat V. I've been looking at the
patent for a while trying to figure out how it works.

Yeah, it should be CP because that would correctly fit the definition
of the field being identical along the sphere, in all possible
measurement antenna orientations. Note that the isotropic simulator I
posted is *NOT* circularly polarized. If you plug the deck into 4NEC2
and instead of looking at the total gain in the 3D window, look at the
vertical and horizontal gains individually, you'll see something
really ummm.... interesting.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/isotropic/isotrop2-vert.jpg
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/isotropic/isotrop2-horiz.jpg
Needless to say, that the polarization is not even close to being
uniform over the sphere. (I'll add these to the menu as soon as I can
figure out what the latest JAlbum update broke in my photo
collection).

Drivel: Just got 4NEC2 setup on my new computah (Dell Optiplex 755
E8500 with 4GB). A messy tower and antenna simulation, that took over
an hour on my old PIII/1GHz clunker, now takes about 4 minutes. I'm
happy (for now).




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

Corriolis force
 

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.

Corriolis force
 

Dave wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 10:33 am, Art Unwin wrote:
And I imagine that there are still many readers world wide
who are still wondering what constitutes "equilibrium" in
an antenna system. :(

not any more, he defined it just the other day, equilibrium==isotropic.

And again today in response to Cecil concerning a full wave loop versus
full wave dipole, equilibrium == no reflections.

I don't think he's sure what equilibrium is except that it's his trump
card in an argument.

Corriolis force
 

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?

Corriolis force
 

Mike Coslo wrote:

The speed of light.

Acceleration isn't expressed as C.

Does RF energy have mass?


If it does that could explain the weight gain over my years as a ham.

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
What is the acceleration of RF?
The speed of light.

and you call yourself a mechanical engineer?? how are speed and
acceleration related in your mechanical world?

Corriolis force
 

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.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 4, 3:29*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

What is the acceleration of RF?
The speed of light.

and you call yourself a mechanical engineer?? *how are speed and
acceleration related in your mechanical world?


Because acceleration is following a parabolic curve beyond which it
has attained the speed of light. I cannot determine the acceleration
as that is a determinate of. L. and C As it happens the speed of
light was determined after radiation which to my mind puts it firmly
into the particle arena

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 4, 3:13*pm, tom wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The speed of light.

Acceleration isn't expressed as C.

Does RF energy have mass?

If it does that could explain the weight gain over my years as a ham.

tom
K0TAR

Weight gain is all in your head

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 4, 11:22*am, (J. B. Wood) wrote:
In article
, Art



Unwin wrote:
It seems that some do not understand what the Corriolis force is so
here goes
When the Big Bang ocurred all energy was in *an arbitrary boundary
just like the Sun is. When the forces *( four forces of the Standard
model) could not be contained with in the boundary the boundary broke
which as scientists state was the begining of our Universe. Before the
arbitrary boundary broke it is a state of equilibrium ( This is also
duplicated by the Sun) You can visualize a ball which contains all
energy by placing vectors all around the inside where for every vector
on the inside there is an equal and opposite on the outside. Tho
energy cannot be created or destroyed, kinetic energy can occur at the
expense of potential energy such that the outside vectors are over
come. *The boundary breaks and the excess forces are released until
the boundary is able to return to a state of equilibrium. Now when the
break occurs it is *at the point of a particular vector such that the
breakage is created by a shearing action, as the forces in question
was not aligned, with spin. Thus when any energy,particles etc *they
escaped with a spin action which force forces to balance requires an
equal and opposite reaction and the Corriolis force is that component.
Without the Corriolis component we could not remain on this Earth and
gravity could not exist. Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.

Art,

Since there is no "" on the subject line I assume you are the initiator
of this post and I have to ask how it's relevant to this newsgroup. *You
have also attempted to initiate other off-topic threads. *Can't you find a
more appropriate ng or forum for these posts rather than show a disregard
for those coming here to seek info on ham antennas and related issues? *At
the very least I would appreciate including the standard "OT:" prefix on
the subject lines of off-topic posts. *These kinds of posts illustrate why
moderated newsgroups become necessary. *Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

John Wood (Code 5550) * * * *e-mail: * * * * * * * * * *
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

Oh shut up. there is nothing sincere in your posts

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 4, 8:36*am, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 3, 10:33 am, Art Unwin wrote:

And I imagine that there are still many readers world wide
who are still wondering what constitutes "equilibrium" in
an antenna system. * :(

not any more, he defined it just the other day, equilibrium==isotropic.

No David, I just went along with your interpretation of same in the
U.S.
For my self I will stick to equilibrium as stated in any dictionary.
So I accept your terms as one to use in the US electrical arena
because you get upset as it may sometimes be equivalent to
equilibrium. But I am not going to fight that battle.
Personally, I am beginning to think hams mix the terms resonant and
equilibrium or is it just the U.S. One day some body is going to say
gottcha that is inevitable with so many hits
but that is not one of them.

Corriolis force
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:13 pm, tom wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The speed of light.
Acceleration isn't expressed as C.
Does RF energy have mass?
If it does that could explain the weight gain over my years as a ham.

tom
K0TAR

Weight gain is all in your head

For someone who complains about criticism you sure are being an ass lately.

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 3:29 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

What is the acceleration of RF?
The speed of light.

and you call yourself a mechanical engineer?? how are speed and
acceleration related in your mechanical world?

Because acceleration is following a parabolic curve beyond which it
has attained the speed of light. I cannot determine the acceleration
as that is a determinate of. L. and C As it happens the speed of
light was determined after radiation which to my mind puts it firmly
into the particle arena

i asked about pure mechanical relationship, what is the relationship between
speed and acceleration??

Corriolis force
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 8:36 am, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 3, 10:33 am, Art Unwin wrote:

And I imagine that there are still many readers world wide
who are still wondering what constitutes "equilibrium" in
an antenna system. :(

not any more, he defined it just the other day, equilibrium==isotropic.

No David, I just went along with your interpretation of same in the
U.S.
For my self I will stick to equilibrium as stated in any dictionary.
So I accept your terms as one to use in the US electrical arena
because you get upset as it may sometimes be equivalent to
equilibrium. But I am not going to fight that battle.
Personally, I am beginning to think hams mix the terms resonant and
equilibrium or is it just the U.S. One day some body is going to say
gottcha that is inevitable with so many hits
but that is not one of them.

there is no reference for 'equilibrium' to be applied to electromagnetic
radiation. is just doesn't exist. so you have now given up all your
credibility by not sticking with what you admitted was an equivalent of your
term 'equilibium' in 'isotropic'.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 3, 7:17*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Dr Cohen (chip) gave up in trying educate the psuedo experts of
his findings because this group was not interested in change.

He gave up when AOL dropped Usenet and he couldn't use his many
aliases.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 4, 4:17*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:13 pm, tom wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The speed of light.
Acceleration isn't expressed as C.
Does RF energy have mass?
If it does that could explain the weight gain over my years as a ham.

tom
K0TAR

Weight gain is all in your head

For someone who complains about criticism you sure are being an ass lately.

tom
K0TAR

No. I just not going to let you push me around. If the group want to
act like an arse then I am happy to follow suit. When civility returns
to this group I will be happy to reciprocate.
Just a question of choices taken

If I say sincerely yours does that get me off the hook?

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 4, 5:00*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 3:29 pm, "Dave" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

What is the acceleration of RF?
The speed of light.

and you call yourself a mechanical engineer?? how are speed and
acceleration related in your mechanical world?

Because acceleration is following a parabolic curve beyond which it
has attained the speed of light. I cannot determine the acceleration
as that is a determinate of. L. and *C As it happens the speed of
light was determined after radiation which to my mind puts it firmly
into the particle arena

i asked about pure mechanical relationship, what is the relationship between
speed and acceleration??

The applicable law by Newton states ut +ft sq/2. Without a value for
time acceleration cannot be stated. The circuit is one of a tank
circuit so one has to state the frequency as well.Acceleration is the
ratio between root W.L.as well as frequency so again acceleration
cannot be stated without all the facts. Time is measured by the time
two fields are interacting after which the particle maintaines a
straight line projection. The interaction is parabolic in nature in
all cases. The fields are electrical by the way tho all mechanical
movements can be expressed in electrical terms

Corriolis force
 

Art Unwin wrote:

No. I just not going to let you push me around. If the group want to
act like an arse then I am happy to follow suit. When civility returns
to this group I will be happy to reciprocate.
Just a question of choices taken

If I say sincerely yours does that get me off the hook?

Nope. You're still an ass. I believe the term the current geek
generation uses is "asshat".

And your mistaking criticism for being pushed around. You are the one
calling pretty much everyone, including those that have managed to make
a living designing and installing antenna systems, idiots. Expect to
get hard pushback when you do that, especially since you haven't managed
to produce one solid provable fact or testable hypothesis for the group.

Bafflegab is just bafflegab, Art, and that's all anyone's seen to date.

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

Art Unwin wrote in news:cf5b3115-db1d-42a5-98cb-
:

Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.


Of course torque is a force. Ask any auto mechanic.

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

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 4, 7:21*pm, Gordon wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:cf5b3115-db1d-42a5-98cb-
:

Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.

Of course torque is a force. *Ask any auto mechanic.

I am more familier with the Corriolis force as
it applies to weather. *IE: 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. So when there is an updraft clinging to
the water droplets are these particles which gather a charge with
elevation until the moisture cools and there is no room for them to
stay. These particles are now electrically static charged where when
broken loose move to ground or the other side of the capacitor. Thus
we all see a lightning strike which is an electical static field. This
same charge circulates the earth one way above the equator and and ony
way below the equator such that the shearing action occurs which is
the circular motions that we see everywhere in life. These same
charges cling to space suits in outer space because the human body is
mainly water. NASA has had some luck by discharging the suits to a
ground as one would do with a capacitor so the abrasive particles do
not enter a ship. Without charge the particles are basically inert
like a unbound electron'
For the life of me I do not understand this stance that a shearing
action does not create spin or torque. A real crazy group of experts.
As far as pressure deviations in weather this is exacty the force we
see in eddy currents of electricity as well as mechanical things such
as tornadoes. All four forces involved in the Big Bang are the only
forces involved in the Universe because of the Newtonian laws so use
of the boundary laws are indispensible
with respect to all that happens, chemical, electrical, mechanical or
what every where energy units such as volts etc are inter convertible
metrics. And the electrostatic field is a isolated phenomina that has
zero connections to laws of this Universe
Thanks for your involvement on this issue.
Regards
Art

Corriolis force
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:49:07 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:


"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .

... attacking a persons background, education, personality, appearance,
and wallpaper is little better than a character assassination and
should be avoided. Discuss the ideas, not the person.

Nonsense. Personal attacks are the surest way to victory. Study any
successful politician and you will have no need for me to explain further.

I said "avoided", not eliminated entirely. There are places where
character assasinations are both useful and successful. As you
indicate, politics is one of these. There's also advertising,
competative bidding, and stealing someones girlfriend. All is fair in
love, war, politics, advertising, but not antenna design.

Examine the dreck that fills up your mailbox on Friday and Saturday before
any election day. It's not pro-candidate; it's not pro-anything; it's all
god-damn-my-opponent -- and they're called "hit pieces" for good reason.

You're being too generous. It has been demonstrated that candidates
can win an election without ever mentioning any issues. Even the dead
have won elections. However, none of these politicians have ever
designed an antenna, so I suspect that this phenomenon would not be
particularly applicable.

Saint Edward of Massachusetts, aka Teddy Kennedy, was civil when it suited
him but he engaged in the vilest of character assassination* the rest of the
time. It didn't matter as long as he could cast his target upon the trash
heap.

Hint: You don't make it to the top in politics (and business) without
stepping over a few bodies. Much as I would like this to cease, I've
seen no indications that this will ever change. However, with debates
over antenna design, we still have the option to act in a reasonably
civil manner. In general, most of those posting questions and answers
in this group are quite civil and usually (not always) concentrate on
the merits of the design or problem, rather than attacking the
invidividual. Simply demonstrating that there is a class of
politicians that violate good taste, proper manners, and logical
arguementation, does not automatically give everyone in this newsgroup
a license to act in a similar manner.

*Bork was a man's name. Senator Kennedy made it a verb.

Name calling also is common. Same logic. Just because politicians do
it, doesn't license everyone to follow in the same manner.



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

Corriolis force
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

For my self I will stick to equilibrium as stated in any dictionary.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equilibrium
"A stable situation in which forces cancel one another."

That suggests an equation, where the canceling forces are on opposite
sides of the equal sign.

I'll supply the equal sign. You supply the rest as in:
force_1 = force_2
What are the two forces that are being balanced or canceled?



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

Corriolis force
 

"Dave Platt" wrote
...
In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I forgot to connect my comments to the original question. Sorry(tm).
You're correct. There's no way to get a good isotropic radiator
pattern with a simple vertical radiator. However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

The difference in pattern between a half-wavelength dipole,
and an infinitesimally-short dipole (i.e. one whose length
approaches a point source) is actually quite small.

A dipole is always the two monopoles and never a point source. Only monopole
is a point source.
S*

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Dave Platt" wrote
...
In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I forgot to connect my comments to the original question. Sorry(tm).
You're correct. There's no way to get a good isotropic radiator
pattern with a simple vertical radiator. However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

The difference in pattern between a half-wavelength dipole,
and an infinitesimally-short dipole (i.e. one whose length
approaches a point source) is actually quite small.

A dipole is always the two monopoles and never a point source. Only
monopole is a point source.
S*

Nonsense. Only a point can be a point source.

The principle of the infinitesimal electric doublet is the hypothetical
result of making the lengths of the elements of a balanced dipole
vanishingly small. This is useful to quantify the characteristics of the
limiting case but, because of its inherent axial symmetry, it still has the
form of a dipole and the same kind of radiation pattern with linear
polarisation and no radiation in the directions aligned with the ends of the
dipole (for the reason I gave earlier in this thread).

Monopole antennas are developed from dipoles by substituting one of the
elements, often using a 'reflection' of the remaining element in a ground
plane. Their characteristics are different from those of the parent dipole
because of this substitution but they still have the same kind of
axially-symmetric radiation pattern, with linear polarisation and no
radiation in the direction of the end of the monopole.

A point source is a hypothetical 'device' that radiates equally in all
directions. Obviously this could not be realised using a monopole because
that would provide the wrong radiation pattern.

A polarisation can be assigned to a point source, for the sake of comparison
with real antennas (which is how the point source is used), just as a point
source can be considered as transmitting or receiving a signal - but that
doesn't mean a physical antenna can be made that has the same
characteristics, that can be made to transmit or receive.

Chris

Corriolis force
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 7:21 pm, Gordon wrote:
And the electrostatic field is a isolated phenomina that has
zero connections to laws of this Universe

Another golden quote! thanks art, i needed a good laugh this morning!

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave Platt" wrote
...
In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I forgot to connect my comments to the original question. Sorry(tm).
You're correct. There's no way to get a good isotropic radiator
pattern with a simple vertical radiator. However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

The difference in pattern between a half-wavelength dipole,
and an infinitesimally-short dipole (i.e. one whose length
approaches a point source) is actually quite small.

A dipole is always the two monopoles and never a point source. Only
monopole is a point source.
S*

there is no such thing as a monopole antenna. unless you have discovered
the magnetic monopole somewhere?

Corriolis force
 

Sal M. Onella wrote:

Saint Edward of Massachusetts, aka Teddy Kennedy, was civil when it suited
him but he engaged in the vilest of character assassination* the rest of the
time. It didn't matter as long as he could cast his target upon the trash
heap.

Sal, respectfully, as long as you and the folks who identify with you
try to turn every stinking conversation into a political bull****
throwing party against the damm leeburuls and socialists and commies,
You'll just make yourself look kind of well, maniacally obsessed.

Not a leebural, but tired off all that crap.

Just sayin'.

Corriolis force
 

Gordon wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:cf5b3115-db1d-42a5-98cb-
:

Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.


Of course torque is a force. Ask any auto mechanic.

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

And that is what the Coriolis force is. It's a mechanical effect, and
not an electrical one.

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.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

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.

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.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 5, 9:30*am, Mike Coslo wrote:
Gordon wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:cf5b3115-db1d-42a5-98cb-
:

Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.

Of course torque is a force. *Ask any auto mechanic.

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

And that is what the Coriolis force is. It's a mechanical effect, and
not an electrical one.

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.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

That is correct and soon the teachings will reflect what I proposed

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 5, 9:44*am, 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.

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.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

That is the presently accepted formula in science where atoms are
removed from the matrics of the radiator.
For me, all diamagnetic materials are completely covered with
particles that entered the solar stream from the Sun. As soon as they
are projected away from a radiator another takes its place, thus no
changes in mass.
When placing such an arrangement in boundary form on the outside is
the vectors of gravity and the Coriolis force. On the inside of the
arbitrary boundary
are the vectors of a moving charge together with a spin action of a
eddy current together with a particle at rest where all transforms in
to a projection with spin of the static particle.
This breaks the arbitrary boundary and where the arrival of another
static particle restores equilibrium.
This mechanism is the same as that from the sun when equilibrium is
broken by the escape of such particles because of the exchange of
potential energy to kinetic energy within its boundary.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 5, 7:47*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 7:21 pm, Gordon wrote:

And the electrostatic field is a isolated phenomina that has
zero connections to laws of this Universe

Another golden quote! *thanks art, i needed a good laugh this morning!

See David,
I do take notice and remember your statements of the past
Check the archives for accuracy.
I too had a good laugh when you came up with that
as your position with respect to physics. What surprised me was that
you were seen as a role model and every one else followed in step. To
this day the group accepts your
position on physics that you cannot add a time varying field to
Gauss's law of Statics.
Two different things, you said, where one has no association with the
other so the premise that Gaussian law then becomes the same as
Maxwells laws is a faulty application and should not be done. Oh my!
What a short memory you have. And remember when you dissed that Doctor
from MIT who agreed with my premise and then everybody assasinated
him as a fool. As for me I am not going anywhere I holding to my
premise
Have a great holiday.

Corriolis force
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 5, 11:36*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of?
Mass with potential energy or what? This word is bandied around so
much
but its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture!
This approach has handicapped the advance in physics and radio for
over a century now.
Should we not explore a different avenue to see if answers lay
elsewhere.? Why do we resist change to so called accepted analogies
and theories? Why is this group so confident
that particles are not involved because it is an electrical thing? If
one accepts kinetic and potential energy why do they fight the
presence of mass?
Regards
Art

Corriolis force
 

"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*

Corriolis force
 

"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). Sound waves are
longitudinal because air pressure is a scalar, whereas electric and magnetic
fields are vectors - they have polarisation.

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!

Chris

Corriolis force
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave Platt" wrote
...
In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I forgot to connect my comments to the original question. Sorry(tm).
You're correct. There's no way to get a good isotropic radiator
pattern with a simple vertical radiator. However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

The difference in pattern between a half-wavelength dipole,
and an infinitesimally-short dipole (i.e. one whose length
approaches a point source) is actually quite small.

A dipole is always the two monopoles and never a point source. Only
monopole is a point source.
S*

there is no such thing as a monopole antenna. unless you have discovered
the magnetic monopole somewhere?

Chris wrote: "Monopole antennas are developed from dipoles by substituting
one of the
elements, often using a 'reflection' of the remaining element in a ground
plane. Their characteristics are different from those of the parent dipole
because of this substitution but they still have the same kind of
axially-symmetric radiation pattern, with linear polarisation and no
radiation in the direction of the end of the monopole."

Is he right?
S*

Corriolis force
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.


So now we have left science, and as far as I can tell, have entered
religion.

I was totally destructed and reconstructed 100,000,000 times this morning.

Prove I wasn't. Art's particles did it. Every atom in my body has been
shed and replaced 10 times that while I typed this note.

Seriously, you guys want to de-construct everything we know and replace
it with religion? Ooookay, I was taught a long time ago to avoid
religious arguments, so have fun, kids.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -