On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:50:53 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Never mind.

Hi Mike,

You are NEVER going to get a straight answer that reveals the height
of stupidity that originated the discussion. You couldn't sensibly
put enough zeros after the decimal on the written page to give the
mass.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"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


as long as you keep holding on to the acoustic analogies you will be wrong.
some of the waves 'look' similar, but only because of the poor capability of
computers to visualize time varying fields in 3d.

"christofire" wrote in message
...

"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

only if you take it seriously... i consider it great entertainment!

christofire wrote:
'Charge' ... can take effect almost instantaneously ...

It's akin to a 100 foot long tube of marbles.
Hit one end of the tube with a hammer and
measure the time it takes the energy impulse
to reach the other end of the tube. How fast
and how far did the energy impulse travel?
How fast and how far did each marble travel?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Mike Coslo wrote:
That isn't a cite, that's a formula.

It's a cite from Einstein, et al.

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

Of course, photons have energy - therefore photons have mass.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:50:53 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Never mind.

Hi Mike,

You are NEVER going to get a straight answer that reveals the height
of stupidity that originated the discussion. You couldn't sensibly
put enough zeros after the decimal on the written page to give the
mass.

'Twould appear that way. The concept that materials go away and come
back via energy applied to them is interesting. I suppose that the
energy applied to an aluminum wire by a copper wire ends up turning the
Aluminum into copper, while the power lines turn into whatever the
turbine generator's wires are, and the turbine itself eventually turns
into steam.

What is old is new again - the alchemists were right!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
christofire wrote:
'Charge' ... can take effect almost instantaneously ...

It's akin to a 100 foot long tube of marbles.
Hit one end of the tube with a hammer and
measure the time it takes the energy impulse
to reach the other end of the tube. How fast
and how far did the energy impulse travel?
How fast and how far did each marble travel?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com


Absolutely. When the old lady in the flat below bangs on her ceiling with
her walking stick, the end of the stick hits the ceiling instantly as she
pushes it upwards. Extrapolating, if an incompressible/inextensible rod or
string could be made, wouldn't that permit communication faster than the
speed of light?

I guess inextensible and incompressible are difficult to achieve, but if
either were possible would the communication still be limited to the speed
of light?

Chris

christofire wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
christofire wrote:
'Charge' ... can take effect almost instantaneously ...

It's akin to a 100 foot long tube of marbles.
Hit one end of the tube with a hammer and
measure the time it takes the energy impulse
to reach the other end of the tube. How fast
and how far did the energy impulse travel?
How fast and how far did each marble travel?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com


Absolutely. When the old lady in the flat below bangs on her ceiling with
her walking stick, the end of the stick hits the ceiling instantly as she
pushes it upwards. Extrapolating, if an incompressible/inextensible rod or
string could be made, wouldn't that permit communication faster than the
speed of light?

Nope, the energy in both the tube of marbles and the walking stick
travels at the speed of sound in the medium.

I guess inextensible and incompressible are difficult to achieve, but if
either were possible would the communication still be limited to the speed
of light?

Chris

Yes.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"christofire" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
christofire wrote:
'Charge' ... can take effect almost instantaneously ...

It's akin to a 100 foot long tube of marbles.
Hit one end of the tube with a hammer and
measure the time it takes the energy impulse
to reach the other end of the tube. How fast
and how far did the energy impulse travel?
How fast and how far did each marble travel?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com


Absolutely. When the old lady in the flat below bangs on her ceiling with
her walking stick, the end of the stick hits the ceiling instantly as she
pushes it upwards. Extrapolating, if an incompressible/inextensible rod
or string could be made, wouldn't that permit communication faster than
the speed of light?

I guess inextensible and incompressible are difficult to achieve, but if
either were possible would the communication still be limited to the speed
of light?

Chris


predicting the properties of something that is impossible to make is
impossible.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
christofire wrote:
'Charge' ... can take effect almost instantaneously ...

It's akin to a 100 foot long tube of marbles.
Hit one end of the tube with a hammer and
measure the time it takes the energy impulse
to reach the other end of the tube. How fast
and how far did the energy impulse travel?
How fast and how far did each marble travel?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com


Absolutely. When the old lady in the flat below bangs on her ceiling
with her walking stick, the end of the stick hits the ceiling instantly
as she pushes it upwards. Extrapolating, if an
incompressible/inextensible rod or string could be made, wouldn't that
permit communication faster than the speed of light?

I guess inextensible and incompressible are difficult to achieve, but if
either were possible would the communication still be limited to the
speed of light?

Chris


predicting the properties of something that is impossible to make is
impossible.


Agreed, but c is finite so is there a degree of compressibility or
expansibility below which faster-than-c communication would be possible? ...
or would the whole principle be scuppered by Lorentz contraction?

Chris


PS: oh dear, I hope no-one applies the Coriolis effect to turn this into
Penrose-Terrell rotation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose-Terrell_rotation)!