Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 8:57*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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

But if it is full wave it is a tank circuit which does not radiate in
both half cycles but in pulses
as Planck states. It only radiates when the capacitive field
intersects with a magnetic field.

Corriolis force
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

photons are and always have ben particles!

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 ?

yes, i would also have it retain electrons. but i would not have it retain
photons.

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

So you are saying they are one and the same where a wave is a
adjective describing the action of a spining particle. Interesting you
quote the electron gun. We have an electron
without a spin and certainly not with the speed of light. So we supply
a electrostatic field which intersects a magnetic field. When this
electron ,particle proton or what ever enters the area betwean the
capacitive plates. At that time the article ( not to take sides)
starts to accelerate under the influence of both fields such that it
takes on a parabolic spin.
When it exits this combined field it obviously takes a straight line
projection with spin.
Now without the fields influence we move beyond acceleration where
the speed can be determined. It is proven that it is a certain speed
that was later determined as also the speed of light. So, we have a
beam which is certainly not of a wave but a stream of particles which
operate at the same speed as light. Very interesting. This moves away
from Rutherford wave theory. Along comes the slit experiment which
then sways back thought to the wave theory which is a convenient wy of
saying it is undecided.
Now we have the slit antenna that sways the argument back to particles
which has a connection to light and spin and the acelerration of
charge. No where has the propasition of a photons being around is
stated. Now you state that a photon exists dependent on the rate of
spin to shed light So where did this photon emerge from?
It certainly did not come from mass as that can only happen when the
nucleus of an atom is torn apart as you point out with a atomic
explosion which is the result of what is called the Strong force and
that is not happening. So if you provide an answer to the posted
question posed on Gauss and Maxwell we can then follow on to explore
your reasoning. But you must start from somewhere that is accordance
with accepted laws. I have done that where you have not. So the
question posted is salient to this whole discussion and your education
suggests you are up to the task so what is it that you are uneasy
about?

Corriolis force
 

Dave wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

photons are and always have ben particles!

Umm, no, photons are "particle like" and at the same time "wave like".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 12:00*pm, wrote:
Dave wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
....
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

photons are and always have ben particles!

Umm, no, photons are "particle like" and at the same time "wave like".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Maybe but waves are an adjective where as particle is a noun. Yes a
cluster or a swarm
may move together that has the appearance of waves which also can be
seen as a swarm of particles but again root of discussion must be a
noun. An accelerated beam is that of a single particle action that is
repeated. The particle alone cannot act as a wave unless it has
another particle that can be seen as a datum.

Corriolis force
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
We have an electron without a spin and certainly not with the speed of
light.

you can't have an electron without spin, it always has the same spin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

snip a bunch of incoherent babbling

So where did this photon emerge from?
It certainly did not come from mass as that can only happen when the
nucleus of an atom is torn apart as you point out with a atomic
explosion which is the result of what is called the Strong force and
that is not happening.

ever hear of electrons changing state and emitting photons? or the
photoelectric effect?? neither require strong force or nuclear reactions.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 11:37*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:

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.

photons are and always have ben particles!

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 ?

yes, i would also have it retain electrons. *but i would not have it retain
photons.

So the question remains where does a photon come from if it is not an
internal function of a free electron. Frankly the capacitor suggests
that the photon is a charge possesed by
a free electron. So again we are back to the Gauss/Maxwell question.
Cecil does has a track record with his degree and more important his
MENSA membership but he is having problems with the photon. particle
problem which lies with the Gauss/ Maxwell question.
Einstein insinuated that the weak force is part of radiation and I
have applied my theorem to that. But I can't persue other theorems
until the Gauss/maxwell question is resolved by those with a track
record and not just intuition.

Corriolis force
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...


The particle alone cannot act as a wave unless it has
another particle that can be seen as a datum.

go read up on single photon diffraction experiments and see if you still
think it takes multiple photons to act as a wave.

Corriolis force
 

"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?
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.


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.

Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the two
sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see the
Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 5, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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 Bia³ek" 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.

Corriolis force
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
So the question remains where does a photon come from if it is not an
internal function of a free electron. Frankly the capacitor suggests
that the photon is a charge possesed by
a free electron.

photons have no charge.

So again we are back to the Gauss/Maxwell question.

separate guass and maxwell. gauss wrote laws, maxwell made a collection of
equations and tied them all together... some of which were written
originally by gauss. the basic laws that went into maxwell's collection
have been well proven separately for over a century, and as a collection to
explain electromagnetic waves almost as long. but note that maxwell does
not talk about particles, his equations describe fields and waves. They do
contain terms for charge, but do not tie it to any given particle... and if
you include the force equation then you can talk about mass and charge, but
again not tied to any specific particle.

Einstein insinuated that the weak force is part of radiation and I
have applied my theorem to that.

ah, so that is where you have crossed up the weak for and radiation...
unfortunately the radiation being described in relation to the weak force is
not electromagnetic radiation, but rather radiation caused by nuclear
decay... most often beta decay where the nucleus emits an electron and
converts a neutron to a proton and an anti-neutrino. hmm, do anti-neutrinos
cancel out your magical levitating diamagnetic solar neutrinos?

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the two
sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see the
Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated by
the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there is no
frequency doubling as you explain it.

Corriolis force
 

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

because art is the consummate Democrat... he thinks that if he believes
something then it must be true and its up to everyone else to prove him
wrong. just look at the Democrat's belief that throwing money at education
will result in better educated students... that has been going wrong for
decades and they still believe it. art also shares another quality with
Democrats, they don't learn. They keep doing the same things over and over
again expecting to get different results... isn't that a thing called
insanity?

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 5, 7:09*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"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.

Now I understand this continuous on going babble with Art. Damn, you
guys have nothing better to do. Come to think of it thats why Im here
right now. Lets go get some sun.

Jimmie

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



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 Bia³ek" 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

Jimmie the answer resides in the question posed. If you have a track
record such as a degree where you can explain academically, place your
input or be declared a follower.
2;1 against me so far but I need a couple more. So far there has been
much more that have commented but I have to sort intuition from
academics to decide on the playing field

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 1:21*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

So the question remains where does a photon come from if it is not an
internal function of a free electron. Frankly the capacitor suggests
that the photon is a charge possesed by
a free electron.

photons have no charge.
Could be I believe Cecil thinks otherwise but first we need to verify
the first statement made to determine what path to take. As yet
photons are not in Maxwells laws as we know it. That is Cecil,s track
without the beginning disclosed or a position on my beginning
and he has a problem with that, hopefully he comes down on my side



So again we are back to the Gauss/Maxwell question.

separate guass and maxwell. *gauss wrote laws, maxwell made a collection of
equations and tied them all together... some of which were written
originally by gauss. *the basic laws that went into maxwell's collection
have been well proven separately for over a century,

We are in agreement up to here, a drum roll please!
and as a collection to
explain electromagnetic waves almost as long.
Nope. He added to the laws dt becau8se the metrics must add up to zero
per Newton
From this addition the metrics supply a clue to accellaration of
charge

*but note that maxwell does
not talk about particles, his equations describe fields and waves.

Yes but not a explanation of the addition referring to acelaration of
charge dt

Theories alone have come along by others, waves, particles (photons)
and a little bit of both as yet none have been conclusive.

*They do
contain terms for charge, but do not tie it to any given particle..

Back again we are in agreement

.. and if
you include the force equation then you can talk about mass and charge, but
again not tied to any specific particle.

Again we are in agreement, this is terrific !


Einstein insinuated that the weak force is part of radiation and I
have applied my theorem to that.

ah, so that is where you have crossed up the weak for and radiation...
unfortunately the radiation being described in relation to the weak force is
not electromagnetic radiation,

That is a matter of contention which is why I turned to boundary laws
which exhibit all forces. The one I chose was Gaussion law of statics
to procede upon since it was the basis
for placing a weak force in position which up to that point had not
been applied.
Thus to keep in line with Maxwells laws I was forced to make a static
field dynamic
which is accepted by physics unless I want to make it a special case
as others seem to think

but rather radiation caused by nuclear
decay... most often beta decay

Well the Sun did provide these particles when equilibrium was broken
so if residue from the sun is radio active OR includes such I can
accept that. No problem


where the nucleus emits an electron and
converts a neutron to a proton and an anti-neutrino.

I have "hinted" at neutrinos because it is presently hinted that
several typed of Neutrinos (flavors are emited by the Sun) we also see
light on contact with the Aurora but I decided to hang my hat on a
particle/ free electron because a lot can happen between the Sun and
its travels to Earth.

Well now you are into theory and just like the Higgs field all are
searching for conformation
via existing laws to give some substance to particles between the sun
and the Earth!.


*hmm, do anti-neutrinos
cancel out your magical levitating diamagnetic solar neutrinos?

I have no idea. We do not know what is the difference to flavours
emmitted or their characteristics., What we do know is they enter the
earth as the smallest mass known
( from the Italian world of Enrico)
All of this starts with the Gauss/Maxwell aproach where I say you can
turn a static field into a dynamic field which is against the
perception of those on the group that are educated ,
academically.At least so far as those who are comfortable with both of
these laws.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 1:27*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

because art is the consummate Democrat... he thinks that if he believes
something then it must be true and its up to everyone else to prove him
wrong. *just look at the Democrat's belief that throwing money at education
will result in better educated students... that has been going wrong for
decades and they still believe it. *art also shares another quality with
Democrats, they don't learn. *They keep doing the same things over and over
again expecting to get different results... isn't that a thing called
insanity?

No. Some of this group state what you repeat day after day, sme old
thing, is called experience.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 5, 7:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* 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.
------------

The NEC computer programs are not in error. The error is in
understanding how far-field patterns develop.

Art, please read the following link about "tipped verticals," which
hopefully will lead to a better understanding of this issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...74e9df6d9d1aa9

RF

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 3:02*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* 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.

------------

The NEC computer programs are not in error. *The error is in
understanding how far-field patterns develop.

Art, please read the following link about "tipped verticals," which
hopefully will lead to a better understanding of this issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a/browse_threa...

RF

I thought you had trackrecord in academics so you had a understanding
of the Gauss/Maxwell laws Oh well we all make mistakes
..
Now for your eznec set up. If it were me I would not quit so early but
at least try to fill a quadrant so you can determine a step that
appears logical
A bit to early to slaughter the messenger tho it appears to be your
intention.regardless

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



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 Bia³ek" 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

If you have the academic background then post at the point of the
problem. If not enjoy the Sun

Corriolis force
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the
two sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see
the Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated by
the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there is no
frequency doubling as you explain it.

.... and the so-called 'Luxembourg effect' is not frequency doubling but
cross modulation; that is, generation in the ionosphere of intermodulation
products that carry the modulation of both sources. Third-order IPs are
usually much more important than harmonics when they fall in the same band
as one or more of the generating signals.

Chris

Corriolis force
 

"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.


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.



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.

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

Chris





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.

Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the two
sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see the
Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

Corriolis force
 

"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 7:00 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* 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.
------------

The NEC computer programs are not in error. The error is in
understanding how far-field patterns develop.

Art, please read the following link about "tipped verticals," which
hopefully will lead to a better understanding of this issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...74e9df6d9d1aa9

RF


* Richard, thank you for that. I stand by what I have stated in several
places earlier in this thread, that if tipping-over a monopole or dipole
results in more gain in one direction then that will be counteracted by less
gain in another direction (i.e. azimuth) as your eznec pattern illustrates.
There is also the question of polarisation purity.

Chris

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 4:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 6, 3:02*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
Now for your eznec set up. If it were me I would not quit so early but
at least try to fill a quadrant so you can determine a step that
appears logical
-------
If you understood NEC programs and the underlying physical principles
on which they are based, Art, you would realize that the graphic
comparison I posted represents the BEST CASE for those two
conditions. Average performance over a quadrant is even worse.

If you have another "step" that appears logical to you, and which you
think proves your point, I'll be happy to model it if you will supply
acceptable details.

But from your point of view, you'd have been better off not making
such a statement.

RF

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 5:18*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 6, 4:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 6, 3:02*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
Now for your eznec set up. If it were me I would not quit so early but
at least try to fill a quadrant so you can determine a step that
appears logical

-------
If you understood NEC programs and the underlying physical principles
on which they are based, Art, you would realize that the graphic
comparison I posted represents the BEST CASE for those two
conditions. *Average performance over a quadrant is even worse.

If you have another "step" that appears logical to you, and which you
think proves your point, I'll be happy to model it if you will supply
acceptable details.

But from your point of view, you'd have been better off not making
such a statement.

RF

Ok I will drop it,
that way I an be called in error and not arrogant
At last the end

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 5:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, JIMMIE wrote:





On Sep 5, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

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 Bia³ek" 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.

Corriolis force
 

Dear Group:
I applaud the suggestion to read my mentor's book on Antennas (any
edition) to gain an understanding. The clarity of his writing is the best
that I have found. However, recently a collaborator of Professor Kraus has
written a small, inexpensive book just explaining Maxwell's compilation of
equations.

Consider the purchase and study of: "A Student's Guide to Maxwell's
Equations" by Daniel Fleisch. ISBN is 978-0-521-70147-1 The publisher is
Cambridge University Press. Amazon has the book for about $23.

73, Mac N8TT
--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:

I managed to clip "stuff" and attributions.



* 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 favorites that provides clear
explanations that you understand? Answers.com doesn't explain anything
technical.





* 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.

Corriolis force
 

Art wrote:
"I thought you had a trackrecord in academics so you had an
understanding of Maxwell`s laws."

Maxwell`s equations are necessary and sufficient to describe radiation
from any antenna. I long ago suggested in this newsgroup that Art read a
fine book, "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield
Griffith,Jr., now reprinted by Scitech Publishing Inc.

In the first chapter Griffith gives a brief history of electrical
knowledge. On page 3 he says:

"We had, for instance, Coulomb`s law, relating to electric charge and
the mechanical force it produces; Ampere`s Rule, connecting current and
magnetism; Gauss` law, giving the relationship between electric charge
and the field of the electric potential; Ohm`s law, relating voltage,
current, and resistance; and Faraday`s law, concerning the relationship
between the magnetic field and the induced voltage. Nothing seemed to
tie these miscellanious relationships together, althoigh they appeared
to pertain to the same general subject.

Perhaps it was the working of a fateful pattern, perhaps mere
coincidennce, that there was born in the same year that Faraday made his
great discovery the man who was destined to correlate and organize all
these separate rules into the modern electromagnetic theory."

"Maxwell`s Generalization"

This posting is long enough so I`ll stop.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Corriolis force
 

"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
Dear Group:
I applaud the suggestion to read my mentor's book on Antennas (any
edition) to gain an understanding. The clarity of his writing is the best
that I have found. However, recently a collaborator of Professor Kraus
has written a small, inexpensive book just explaining Maxwell's
compilation of equations.

Consider the purchase and study of: "A Student's Guide to Maxwell's
Equations" by Daniel Fleisch. ISBN is 978-0-521-70147-1 The publisher
is Cambridge University Press. Amazon has the book for about $23.

73, Mac N8TT
--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:

I managed to clip "stuff" and attributions.

.... which I've further clipped (Chris).


* Thank you Mac. A voice of sense in the wilderness!

I'm aware that Fleisch collaborated with Kraus to compile the third edition
of 'Antennas: for all applications' classified as ISBN 13: 978-0-07-112240-5
and ISBN 10: 0-07-112240-0. In my view this is one of the clearest editions
of 'Antennas' so his guide to Maxwell's equations will certainly be worth
investigating.

I found another, rather unexpected, source of lucid practical application of
some of Maxwell's equations in a book that may be the 'bible' for those
involved professionally in VHF/UHF aeronautical communications: 'Ultra High
Frequency Propagation' by Reed, H.R. and Russell, C.M., Boston Technical
Publishers, of which I have the second edition from1966. Chapter 4 therein.
I bought my copy from one of the on-line second-hand book stores for
something like 8 UKP. I recommend it to all who read this news group - it
really is lucid on lots of matters of antennas and propagation, and not just
at UHF.

Chris

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 5:53*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 6, 5:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, JIMMIE wrote:

On Sep 5, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

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 Bia³ek" 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

If you have the academic background then post at the point of the
problem. If not enjoy the Sun- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No problem and no point.

Jimmie

Well Jimmie it is very interesting so far. Two academics who came
forwards
presented a real clue on our differences which allows us to
concentrate on a single factor.
The point that they are making is that this is a rare exception to the
ability of turning a static field into a dynamic field ! This is the
single point of disagreement on the validity of the starting of the
trail that I undertook. Those two are comfortable with the
understanding of Gauss and Maxwell where others were unsure. So the
task is now simple which allows others to join in. What in this
situation makes it different to other situations that does not allow a
transformation to a dynamic field which is the norm of Classical
Physics.
Short, clear, and to the point which is all inclusive to the
discussion. It wipes out all the side talk and accusation of arragance
and the use of the term babble when one cannot understand points
made . I am real happy these two came forward because it essentially
has high lighted our differences upon which we can concentrate on.
What in terms of Classical Physics that is placed forward by these two
prevents the change over to a dynamic field? Maybe they will tell us
or maybe it is for the individual to identify which and what is
correct and why.
Progress at last!
After all these years after discussion between suedo experts shooting
from the hip and hitting themselves in the foot.

Corriolis force
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:16 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

Jimmie the answer resides in the question posed. If you have a track
record such as a degree where you can explain academically, place your
input or be declared a follower.
2;1 against me so far but I need a couple more. So far there has been
much more that have commented but I have to sort intuition from
academics to decide on the playing field

Art

I don't remember what you stated as your alma mater. Could you please
enlighten us as to where you got your EE degree?

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

Dave wrote:

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the
two sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see
the Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated
by the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there
is no frequency doubling as you explain it.

Dave

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

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

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 5:07*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Richard Fry" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 7:00 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* 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.

------------

The NEC computer programs are not in error. *The error is in
understanding how far-field patterns develop.

Art, please read the following link about "tipped verticals," which
hopefully will lead to a better understanding of this issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a/browse_threa...

RF

* Richard, thank you for that. *I stand by what I have stated in several
places earlier in this thread, that if tipping-over a monopole or dipole
results in more gain in one direction then that will be counteracted by less
gain in another direction (i.e. azimuth) as your eznec pattern illustrates.
There is also the question of polarisation purity.

Chris

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

Corriolis force
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
Dave wrote:

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the
two sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see
the Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated
by the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there is
no frequency doubling as you explain it.

Dave

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

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

tom
K0TAR


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

What am I doing here?

Chris

Corriolis force
 

christofire wrote:
"tom" wrote in message
. net...
Dave wrote:
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the
two sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see
the Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated
by the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there is
no frequency doubling as you explain it.
Dave

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

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

tom
K0TAR


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

What am I doing here?

Chris



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

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

Art Unwin wrote:

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

Another data point. Or better put, Art's babbling for today.

So now we have

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic.

3) no gain.

Keep going Art.

If I missed one, step in Dave.

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

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


Oops missed one right in front of my lying eyes.

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic.

3) no gain.

4) polarization purity.

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 5:07 pm, "christofire" wrote:

-- snip --

* Richard, thank you for that. I stand by what I have stated in several
places earlier in this thread, that if tipping-over a monopole or dipole
results in more gain in one direction then that will be counteracted by
less
gain in another direction (i.e. azimuth) as your eznec pattern
illustrates.
There is also the question of polarisation purity.

Chris

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


* I don't suppose it's arrogant to present reasoning derived from the work
of those who have provided practical antenna designs for the masses for a
century or more - it's just a case of reminding the readers of this NG
what's already out there, freely available for them to investigate (as
though most of them didn't already know!).

I do suppose it's arrogant to present new, unproven, possibly paraphysical,
attempts at 'explanation' involving poorly-defined terms like 'equilibrium',
in opposition to the conventional working and expecting those who read this
NG to believe them, when the full working appears to be withheld.

Chris

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 7:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Equilibrium is when there is no gain. When this occurs there is
polarisation purity.
____________

So you say, Art.

Note that a useful and practical antenna with "no gain," i.e., an
isotropic radiator, does not exist in the real world.

So what good is your concept of "equilibrium?"

RF

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 7:10*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:16 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

Jimmie the answer resides in the question posed. If you have a track
record such as a degree where you can explain academically, place your
input or be declared a follower.
2;1 against me so far but I need a couple more. So far there has been
much more that have commented but I have to sort intuition from
academics to decide on the playing field

Art

I don't remember what you stated as your alma mater. *Could you please
enlighten us as to where you got your EE degree?

tom
K0TAR

no