|
Corriolis force
Szczepan Białek wrote:
"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. Yup, getting involved in a religious argument, Sorry about that! I'll be Art's religion can explain Chemtrails too! 8^) - 73 de Mike N3LI |
Corriolis force
"christofire" wrote ... "Szczepan Białek" wrote in message ... 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. Yes. Monopole made of wire is not a point source. For this reason inventors mounted something lake a ball on the end. 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). Each todays dipole consist of the two monopoles in opposite phase. There are the two seperate sources. They produce the two spherical waves. You say they are polarised - I that they are coupled. 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. Equipment is polarized - not waves. Point sorce cannot be polarised. The two monopoles are always polarized. Long wire without big tip is pseudo-polarized. S* |
Corriolis force
Art Unwin wrote:
Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of? ... its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture! Photons are quantized elementary particles in the standard model. Every time you see something, like this posting of mine, you are capturing the photons incident upon your retina. Double slit experiments with photons have been performed with a single photon which apparently can go through both slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side. Those photon detectors indeed can capture individual photons. Photons are quite often generated and detected within particle accelerators. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Corriolis force
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art is trying to convince us that ... in fact all physics is completely wrong. How many years and thousands of postings did it take to come to that observation? What comes around goes around (the Corriolis force defined). ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Corriolis force
"christofire" wrote ... "Szczepan Białek" 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). EM waves by Maxwell are transverse waves. They are the paper waves. The real electric waves are mainly longitudinal. 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. Here is the full acoustic analogy. The two loudspeakers work like the two monopoles. 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. S* |
Corriolis force
Mike Coslo wrote:
So now we have left science, and as far as I can tell, have entered religion. Everything I said is supported by the laws of physics as we presently understand them. I was totally destructed and reconstructed 100,000,000 times this morning. Prove I wasn't. It is usually impossible to prove a negative. You might have only been destructed and reconstructed 99,999,999 times this morning. That's why the onus of proof is upon the one who makes the positive assertion. What would you say if the police knock on your door and demand that you prove that you never ran a red light? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Corriolis force
On Sep 5, 10:52*am, Art Unwin wrote:
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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Art should surely stick to the one liners. ROTFLAMO. Jimmie |
Corriolis force
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message ... "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? different context... "Monopole" antennas as he is describing are a specific type of antennas that are otherwise described as 'verticals', 'ground plane', or several other terms.. all of which actually are dipoles in the context that they have 2 poles, not that they look like a 'half wave dipole' which is a special case of a dipole. In his context it refers to a vertical with some real size greater than zero. in your context the 'monopole is a point source' means you think that a point source is a monopole which is impossible since a monopole(meaning single pole) can't radiate. His description is a bit simplified, but otherwise reasonable for a "Monopole" antenna, but you must always remember there are 2 poles even in a "Monopole" antenna... just one of them is the ground screen or radials. |
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 - Where on earth did you get that thought from.? Or is your intent to mess up the minds of everybody? This line "Art is trying to convince us that EM energy is also a mechanical force consisting of particles" Where did you see that comment? As for things flying of the ends of an antenna where did that idea come from? Everything in this world can be converted to electrical units! What you want to label them at any particular time is fine by me. But untruths are something else. Is this what your presence in this discussion you intend to propagate? |
Corriolis force
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 5, 9:44 am, Mike Coslo wrote: 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. 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. what about my ferromagnetic radiators??? since they don't have your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos they must constantly be losing mass and will eventually fall apart! |
Corriolis force
On Sep 5, 2:28*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 5, 9:44 am, Mike Coslo wrote: 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. 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. what about my ferromagnetic radiators??? since they don't have your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos they must constantly be losing mass and will eventually fall apart! And you are the role model that this group is in lockstep with? Pay attention and stop manufacturing things |
Corriolis force
"Szczepan Białek" wrote in message ... "christofire" wrote ... "Szczepan Białek" 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). EM waves by Maxwell are transverse waves. They are the paper waves. The real electric waves are mainly longitudinal. * 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. 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. 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. 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. Chris |
Corriolis force
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 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. . . . EM waves in an unbounded medium, far enough from a source to be in the far field, have a longitudinal component only if the medium has loss. In air, the fields are for all practical purposes purely transverse as christofire says. Hence the descriptive name for the field orientation as TEM for Transverse Electro-Magnetic. This is also true of some bounded media such as coaxial cables, where again the fields are transverse except for a usually small longitudinal component caused by loss. But in other bounded media such as waveguides, one field or the other (electric field in TM mode and magnetic in TE mode) can be longitudinal. You'll also see a longitudinal component when a wave gets close to lossy ground, although it's typically not large compared to the total field. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Corriolis force
On Sep 5, 1:22*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of? ... its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture! Photons are quantized elementary particles in the standard model. Every time you see something, like this posting of mine, you are capturing the photons incident upon your retina. Double slit experiments with photons have been performed with a single photon which apparently can go through both slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side. Those photon detectors indeed can capture individual photons. Photons are quite often generated and detected within particle accelerators. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation? It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come from? Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know. Waves or particles. |
Corriolis force
On Sep 5, 3:17*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Szczepan Białek" wrote in message ... "christofire" wrote ... "Szczepan Białek" 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). EM waves by Maxwell are transverse waves. They are the paper waves. The real electric waves are mainly longitudinal. * 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. 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. 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. 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. *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. 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. 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.? |
Corriolis force
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... 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'. The crap is with us to stay. I didn't invent it. Recognizing it shouldn't be an offense. My response was to what I perceived to be an overly-idealistic viewpoint about it. Politicians aren't statesmen -- they're simply opportunists. Sal Maniacal Obsessions a Specialty |
Corriolis force
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote: 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. where do you put in the Coriolis effect or gravity direction in your computer modeling program? i haven't seen one yet that let you put those in, or even the latittude that could be used to derive the effect from. without those you are just tipsy. 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. you and him are the ones with gaps... the rest of us believe the hundred plus years of experimental and practical evidence that says maxwell got it right. |
Corriolis force
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 5, 9:30 am, Mike Coslo wrote: Where on earth did you get that thought from.? Or is your intent to mess up the minds of everybody? This line "Art is trying to convince us that EM energy is also a mechanical force consisting of particles" Where did you see that comment? As for things flying of the ends of an antenna where did that idea come from? are you now denying your magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos from the sun that get kicked off the antenna elements?? |
Corriolis force
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote: "Szczepan Białek" 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 |
Corriolis force
On Sep 5, 6:37*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote: "Szczepan Białek" 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 |
Corriolis force
"JIMMIE" wrote in message ... On Sep 5, 6:37 pm, "christofire" wrote: 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. the key with the coriolis effect is that the earth turns under something that is moving north or south at different rates. it doesn't affect what is moving, that still follows normal physics... so basically something launched from the equator going north will have a higher velocity to the east than an observer north of it so it will appear to bend to the east. it really didn't, its just that the observer didn't move fast enough to keep up with it. that is why it is an 'effect' and not a 'force'. the object travels in a normal ballistic path as if the earth wasn't there once it leaves the launching point... so if you shine your laser north from the equator it will 'appear' to bend east, but if it did actually follow the earth's curvature it would only very slightly miss the north pole. |
Corriolis force
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 Białek" 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 |
Corriolis force
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... 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. see, he still doesn't understand that Gauss's law is one of the 4 basic Maxwell equations, always has been and always will be... without his extra time parameter or anything else. he thinks he has discovered something new by adding Gauss's law with time into the equations. |
Corriolis force
On Sep 5, 5:37*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote: "Szczepan Białek" 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 Chris I assume that you have a computer with an optimizer so you are aware that it will follow the intent of Maxwells laws. And if you allow it to do this the input should not be designed for planar forms but allow the optimizer to do its thing. When it finishes it will provide a response of 100 percent accountabilityYou know this because maxwells laws account for all forces such that it then provides a tipped radiator But if you feel it is operator error then what did your program supply with that input or is it you do not own or use an optimizer which seems to be prevalent on this newsgroup. Sooooooo address the statement made by me and provide an academic response since all posted on this subject comes back to that simple statement I made. All the other postings are distortions that have run amoke such that nobody knows the subject of debate and it has become a joke. Your input to the statement I am sure from your comments will be academic in form and greatly appreciated. I am winding this thread down now as statement made are being attributed to me which is false and errors are piling up on errors |
Corriolis force
Dave wrote:
the key with the coriolis effect is that the earth turns under something that is moving north or south at different rates. it doesn't affect what is moving, that still follows normal physics... That is correct. And effect is so much better a word than "force". - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Corriolis force
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Art is trying to convince us that ... in fact all physics is completely wrong. How many years and thousands of postings did it take to come to that observation? Well whaddya expect when all my electrons were replaced this morning. Some of them got a little messed up..... Now I'm working on a way to get the particles that leave my antennas to be replaced with gold instead of more particles of Aluminum or copper. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Corriolis force
Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: So now we have left science, and as far as I can tell, have entered religion. Everything I said is supported by the laws of physics as we presently understand them. Great. Show me the cites that all the particles that leave an antenna are immediately replaced. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
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. Somewhere somehow mass must be transferred under your system. Particles leave and particles come. It isn't just that energy is supplied to the antenna from the radio, which gets these particles from the electricity provided to it, which gets it's voltage from something. Somewhere along the line something has to lose mass, unless magic or supernatural forces are involved. How does the mass from the last thing in the chain go back to the first thing in the chain? -73 de Mike N3LI - |
Corriolis force
Art wrote:
"Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth." Quick! Tell your local broadcaster. We don`t need theory to show that antennas for transmitters and receivers work best together when they are exactly parallel in space unless something in the transmission path is redirecting the polarization of the signal. In aligning microwave antennas humdreds of times, I`ll swear this is true every time, regarfless of Corriolis, no matter which side of the equator I was on. Try it. You`ll be convinced too. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Corriolis force
|
Corriolis force
"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. Mistake. In the halve of the cycle the both antennas lose mass and in the next halve 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. You must measure the mass after the halve of the cycle. S* |
Corriolis force
"christofire" wrote ... "Szczepan Białek" wrote in message ... "christofire" wrote ... "Szczepan Białek" 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). EM waves by Maxwell are transverse waves. They are the paper waves. The real electric waves are mainly longitudinal. * 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). 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? 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* |
Corriolis force
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 5, 5:37 pm, "christofire" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message -- snip -- * 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 Chris I assume that you have a computer with an optimizer so you are aware that it will follow the intent of Maxwells laws. And if you allow it to do this the input should not be designed for planar forms but allow the optimizer to do its thing. When it finishes it will provide a response of 100 percent accountabilityYou know this because maxwells laws account for all forces such that it then provides a tipped radiator But if you feel it is operator error then what did your program supply with that input or is it you do not own or use an optimizer which seems to be prevalent on this newsgroup. Sooooooo address the statement made by me and provide an academic response since all posted on this subject comes back to that simple statement I made. All the other postings are distortions that have run amoke such that nobody knows the subject of debate and it has become a joke. Your input to the statement I am sure from your comments will be academic in form and greatly appreciated. I am winding this thread down now as statement made are being attributed to me which is false and errors are piling up on errors * I have used NEC professionally and I am aware of some of the lower-cost derivatives used by amateurs. What I stated before does not conflict with my experience of using NEC - if I were to tip a vertical element then those effects would result; there wouldn't be any general improvement in its performance. If the program you use shows increased coupling factor in all directions when you tip a vertical monopole then it, and your interpretation of its results, is in error. If you run an 'optimiser' and it yields such a result then the error is widespread in your computing system. The simplest analysis (using arithmetic) of a tipped-over monopole or dipole will demonstrate that its pattern in the horizontal plane is no longer uniform so whatever is gained in one direction is lost elsewhere. I'm beginning to think that the issue is some kind of arrogance - certain individuals purporting to know better than the conventional wisdom (when they probably don't know much of the basics). But I don't really understand why they do this. Perhaps the volume of responses in this NG is enough to give them a feeling of importance and, I realise, I'm not helping by adding to the bonfire! Chris |
Corriolis force
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message ... On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 20:30:30 -0500, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art wrote: "Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth." Quick! Tell your local broadcaster. We don`t need theory to show that antennas for transmitters and receivers work best together when they are exactly parallel in space unless something in the transmission path is redirecting the polarization of the signal. In aligning microwave antennas humdreds of times, I`ll swear this is true every time, regarfless of Corriolis, no matter which side of the equator I was on. Try it. You`ll be convinced too. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Ummmm.... Faraday Rotation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect It's not too horrible at microwave frequencies, but becomes noticeable as the frequency decreases. I've done some crude polarization studies at VHF and UHF frequencies with a rotating dipole, and found some rotation on line of sight paths. However, we were looking for a polarization distribution and didn't really spend any time getting accurate numbers for a line of sight path. * Fraday rotation is much greater in the ionosphere where there are more free electrons, apparently. L-band and C-band links with geostationary satellites use circular polarisation for this reason (as well as others when a mobile terminal is involved) - the degree of twist is measured in turns. At Ku-band it's down to a few degrees. Also many broadcasters use elliptical polarization (a mix of horizontal and vertical). However, that's not to eliminate any Faraday Rotation effects. It's to deal with the effects of reflections and refraction, which create nearly random polarization at the receiving end. Also, because stationary broadcast antennas are horizontally polarized, while vehicle mounted broadcast antennas are usually vertical. * In the UK, VHF FM radio was launched with horizontal polarisation mainly because of a belief that vehicle-generated nois was predominantly vertically polarised. This belief derived from an experiment, but the conclusion may have contained an error. However, it was clear that VHF reception in vehicles was impaired by this choice because a simple vehicular antenna is vertically polarised. As vehicular reception grew, and when commercial radio started at VHF, a vertical component was added to the transmitted signal to improve matters. Nowadays, most of the transmitting antennas for VHF FM radio provide 'mixed polarisation'. I was once asked why the British drive on the left side of the road. My instant answer was Coriolis Effect. I claimed that due to the earth's rotation, it's easier to make left turns on the left side of the Atlantic Ocean and easier to make right turns on the right side of the Atlantic. It took an excessively long time for even the sharpest student to catch the joke/hoax. Sigh. * Isn't the real answer connected to knights in shining armour on their horses and the side that they, traditionally, carried their jousting pole? .... but where did the tradition come from? ... is that to do with the traditional way a right-handed person mounts a horse? Drivel: At 2.4GHz, most wi-fi wireless routers use vertically polarized rubber ducky antennas. Yet, most laptops have their antennas in the top of the LCD frame which are horizontally polarized. Same with PCB antennas found on most PCMCIA cards. * A vertical whip on a device with a horizontal chassis, and horizontal power/data cables, probably radiates plenty of HP as well as VP. Years ago (before the widespread use of normal-mode helix antenna) I worked on a scheme that involved STC/ITT 'Starphone' hand-held transceivers. The base-station antenna was VP but the handsets each contained a PCB loop antenna where the axis of the loop was parallel with the long dimension of the handset, that is, generally wrong! ... but the scheme worked quite well and there was no chance of whip antennas getting broken. Anyway, nobody cares much about antenna polarization: * Well, some still do! Chris http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HC8B4F-AnCQF6I_u0k3MYg http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/LoopMtn03.html -- 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
"Szczepan Białek" 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. 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. 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. Chris |
Corriolis force
Art Unwin wrote:
My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation? It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come from? Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know. Waves or particles. EM radiation waves *are* groups of quantized coherent particles. It's called the wave/particle duality. If one is expecting a wave, one detects a wave. If one is expecting particles, one detects particles. In reality, there is no difference between waves and particles which existed long before man evolved. If you will simply conceptually replace whatever particle that you believe is blasted off the surface of a radiator with a photon radiated by an energetic electron that remains on the surface of the radiator, you will have the presently accepted standard physics model. For something resembling your concepts, one might say that the RF source supplies the energy for the bullets fired by the electron gun located on the surface of the radiator. The gun didn't have any bullets before the source supplied the energy for them. Once the electron gun is loaded, Mother Nature pulls the trigger. A photon at rest on a radiator is undetectable if it can exist at all. The theory is that photons are created by supplying energy to electrons. Photons are the method that electrons use to shed their excess energy. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Corriolis force
Mike Coslo wrote:
Somewhere along the line something has to lose mass, unless magic or supernatural forces are involved. You seem to be missing the fact of physics that mass and energy are equivalent forms related by constants. e = K1*m and m = K2*e where K1 and K2 are constants. For transmitting, there's nothing to prohibit mass from being supplied in its equivalent energy form and then lost from the antenna through radiated mass. (energy in) = (mass in)c^2 = (energy out) = (mass out)c^2 When an atomic bomb goes off, mass is not lost - it simply takes the form of an equivalent amount of energy which, if we were smart enough, could be converted back to mass. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Corriolis force
Szczepan Białek wrote:
In the halve of the cycle the both antennas lose mass and in the next halve gain mass. Actually, a radiator radiates equally during each half cycle, i.e. it loses equal mass during each half cycle. Hint: think balanced transmission line with its two equal differential currents. Electrons on the balanced radiator are accelerated/decelerated equally in either direction. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Corriolis force
On Sep 6, 8:30*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation? It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come from? Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know. Waves or particles. EM radiation waves *are* groups of quantized coherent particles. It's called the wave/particle duality. If one is expecting a wave, one detects a wave. If one is expecting particles, one detects particles. In reality, there is no difference between waves and particles which existed long before man evolved. If you will simply conceptually replace whatever particle that you believe is blasted off the surface of a radiator with a photon radiated by an energetic electron that remains on the surface of the radiator, you will have the presently accepted standard physics model. For something resembling your concepts, one might say that the RF source supplies the energy for the bullets fired by the electron gun located on the surface of the radiator. The gun didn't have any bullets before the source supplied the energy for them. Once the electron gun is loaded, Mother Nature pulls the trigger. A photon at rest on a radiator is undetectable if it can exist at all. The theory is that photons are created by supplying energy to electrons. Photons are the method that electrons use to shed their excess energy. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com What you refer to as a photon I refer to as a particle I refer to it as a particle because of the Gauss connection. One can also use same with a capacitor where the particle is retained between two diamagnetic surfaces and the charge may transfer. Would you have it that a capacitor retains protons which is a particle ? With my analysis it has a trail but yours seem to be just snippets. Perhaps you should provide a response to the Gauss/Maxwell thread where only one academic has come out in favour of David, whereas all others are unsure of the limits of the law on statics. I consider that the beginning of my trail, so how does yours differ. The thread is still there! of a electrostatic field |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com