Corriolis force
 

Art Unwin wrote:
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

So you demand of others what you will not provide.

Add hypocrite to your list of credits.

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 8:09*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
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

Enough! You did not get on the stage with respect to the laws of Gauss
and Maxwell so I must assume you are shooting from the hip.It is not
to late to add to the static /dynamic boundary question assuming you
are an engineer of some sort. Other than that.....

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 6, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Enough! You did not get on the stage with respect to the laws of Gauss
and Maxwell so I must assume you are shooting from the hip...

Probably most readers of your posts on this subject (including yours
truly) don't wish even to _appear_ to support your stated point of
view on this subject, so far.

Still, I suspect that most/all of us are willing to be convinced
otherwise, if you can supply any legitimate reason(s) for us to do so.

The next step is yours, Art.

RF

Corriolis force
 

After all these years after discussion between suedo experts shooting
from the hip and hitting themselves in the foot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee that's a great way to start off a civil conversation. That is the
main reason I for the most part prefer not to converse with you. You
sound more like the typecast ugly American than a British gentleman.

Jimmie

Corriolis force
 

Art wrote:
"Equilibrium is when there is no gain."

I for one appreciate that statement because from my standpoint it is the
first intelligible statement I remember from Art defining "equilibrium".
If you tip a ground-mounted vertical antenna, you lose "equilibrium"
because you disrort its normal omnidirectional pattern. The result is a
gain in some directions and a loss in others. Gain and directivity are
two sides of the same coin.

Light beams and radio beams are very similiar except light is visible.
I`ve seen no gravitational effects on light beams and were radio waves
visible, I`d wager you would see no gravitational effects on them
either. The same for the Coriolis effect.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Corriolis force
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote

We do have the needed resolution of measurement to make that test.

You must measure the mass after the halve of the cycle.

Even if this were the case...... So?

What about after a quarter of the cycle?

- Mike -

Corriolis force
 

christofire wrote:

* You haven't cited a reference.

It's a lot easier to argue these points without references. ;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

Dave wrote:

because art is the consummate Democrat...

Awesome, Dave.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

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.

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

-73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

Szczepan wrote:
"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 logitudinal component? Many respected authors, such as
Kraus, have illustrated the cintrary."

Add Terman to Kraus. On page 1 of Terman`s 1955 opus Terman says:
"Electrical energy that has escaped into free space exists in the form
of electromagtnetic waves. These waves, which are commonly called radio
waves, travel with the velocity of light and consist of mahnetic and
electric fields that are at right angles to each other and also at right
angles to the direction of travel."

Szczepan also wrote: You should see the Luxembourg effect (frequency
foubling) and directional pattern."

That would interest me. I worked four years in a European shortwave
broadcast station and I don`t remember any frequency doubling but we
aspired to hit the ionosphere with enough power to drive it into extreme
nonlinearity end impose our signal en all the others in the area ala
Luxembourg.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Corriolis force
 

"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
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;

Ampere do not connect current and magnetism. For Ampere (and Gauss, Weber
and many others) magnetism is an illusion.

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."

The same means the one. Which of the three: gravity, electricity and
magnetism?


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."

He corelated not all but only the two. In EM the two exist. We need
eliminate the two from the three.

"Maxwell`s Generalization"

This posting is long enough so I`ll stop.

The most important is: "althoigh they appeared to pertain to the same
general subject."
Art is trying to organize them.
It seems to me that he (like many of you) discovered that antennas radiated
something from the ends.
Do you see it also?
S*

Corriolis force
 

"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
Szczepan wrote:
"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 logitudinal component? Many respected authors, such as
Kraus, have illustrated the cintrary."

Add Terman to Kraus. On page 1 of Terman`s 1955 opus Terman says:
"Electrical energy that has escaped into free space exists in the form
of electromagtnetic waves. These waves, which are commonly called radio
waves, travel with the velocity of light and consist of mahnetic and
electric fields that are at right angles to each other and also at right
angles to the direction of travel."

Szczepan also wrote: You should see the Luxembourg effect (frequency
foubling) and directional pattern."

That would interest me. I worked four years in a European shortwave
broadcast station and I don`t remember any frequency doubling but we
aspired to hit the ionosphere with enough power to drive it into extreme
nonlinearity end impose our signal en all the others in the area ala
Luxembourg.

You have read too lot. Mike is right: "It's a lot easier to argue these
points without references"

Hertz did not hit the ionosphere. Look at his apparatus:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

You know that "According to theory, if electromagnetic waves were spreading
from the oscillator sparks, they would induce a current in the loop that
would send sparks across the gap."

According to EM theory the frequency is one and no the lobs in directional
patern.

But you can assume that the capacitor plates are the two seperate sources of
electric waves (of course not in phase).
In such case the frequency in the receiver will be its orientation
dependent. But there are only the two possibilities: the same or doubled.
Similar will be with the directional patern. There has place the normal
interference.

Of course the monopole antennas are free from such phenomenon. What are with
dipole arrays I do not know. People from a phase radar know.

Not all vertical dipole exhibit it. The both ends must be above a landscape.
The famous Luxembourg mast was on the tip of a mount.
The Warsaw was on flat so the effect was obserwed only in Austria mountains.

This is only one theory among many (choosen by teachers to teach the math):
"These waves, which are commonly called radio waves, travel with the
velocity of light and consist of mahnetic and electric fields that are at
right angles to each other and also at right angles to the direction of
travel."

Each famous scientist wrote his own Electrodynamics.
Best regards,S*

Corriolis force
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
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

isotropic == no gain
so you can take one of them off the list.

Corriolis force
 

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:
"Equilibrium is when there is no gain."

I for one appreciate that statement because from my standpoint it is the
first intelligible statement I remember from Art defining "equilibrium".
If you tip a ground-mounted vertical antenna, you lose "equilibrium"
because you disrort its normal omnidirectional pattern. The result is a
gain in some directions and a loss in others. Gain and directivity are
two sides of the same coin.

Light beams and radio beams are very similiar except light is visible.
I`ve seen no gravitational effects on light beams and were radio waves
visible, I`d wager you would see no gravitational effects on them
either. The same for the Coriolis effect.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


look at the plots, when you tip it you reduce the vertical null so you are
making it less directive. remember, the ham 'omnidirectional' use means
only in 2 dimensions... art has taken the leap to 3 dimensions!

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Each famous scientist wrote his own Electrodynamics.
Best regards,S*

i think you and art should get together and write one, it is sure to be a
best seller for years! i would buy one just to read when i need a good
laugh!

Corriolis force
 

Art Unwin wrote:
What you refer to as a photon I refer to as a particle

So do I. "The photon is the gauge boson for electro-
magnetism." Particles are easier to understand than fields.
According to quantum (particle) physics, everything that
exists in reality is a particle, i.e. everything that exists
is quantized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model

Would you have it that a capacitor retains
protons which is a particle?

A capacitor retains electrons which can be collected
on a capacitor plate. (Photons cannot stand still and,
by definition, always travel at the speed of light in
the particular medium. This includes photons in standing
waves.)

"In the Standard Model of particle physics, electrons belong
to the group of subatomic particles called leptons ..."

With my analysis it has a trail but yours seem to be just snippets.

My snippets are sections from the standard model about
which I will choose to stand on the shoulders of giants.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Corriolis force
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...

--snip--

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


Tom, no I can't masquerade as someone else. I live near London, I'm not
building a reactor (at the moment) and I think I'm quite sane.

The reason I'm here is simply the presence of 'antenna' in the name of the
NG but I've been aware throughout my career that this topic is subject to
charlatans and cranks perhaps more than any other topic in electronic
engineering. That's probably because the majority on non-academics have
trouble thinking 3-dimensionally which makes vector calculus very difficult
which, in turn, makes Maxwell's equations difficult to comprehend and apply.
The fraud squad appear to seize this opportunity and use it as a
smokescreen!

Chris

Corriolis force
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
christofire wrote:

* You haven't cited a reference.

It's a lot easier to argue these points without references. ;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


.... you're right, it's utterly breathtaking!

Chris

Corriolis force
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Interesting you
quote the electron gun. ... So where did this photon emerge from?

The electron is the gun, the photons are the bullets.
Quoting Feynman's "QED": "So now, I present to you the
three basic actions, from which all of the phenomena
of light and electrons arise.

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

For an RF antenna radiator, the electrons go from
place to place in (on) the conductor in the form
of free electrons. The photons go from place to place
in the space surrounding the conductor. Only the
photons can move at the speed of light from the
feedpoint to the ends of a dipole. Electrons move
hardly at all.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Corriolis force
 

Dave wrote:

isotropic == no gain
so you can take one of them off the list.

You are correct sir.

Art's equilibrium nuggets.

Equilibrium ==

1) no reflections.

2) isotropic/no gain.

3) polarization purity.

Corriolis force
 

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

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

Corriolis force
 

christofire wrote:


Tom, no I can't masquerade as someone else. I live near London, I'm not
building a reactor (at the moment) and I think I'm quite sane.

The reason I'm here is simply the presence of 'antenna' in the name of the
NG but I've been aware throughout my career that this topic is subject to
charlatans and cranks perhaps more than any other topic in electronic
engineering. That's probably because the majority on non-academics have
trouble thinking 3-dimensionally which makes vector calculus very difficult
which, in turn, makes Maxwell's equations difficult to comprehend and apply.
The fraud squad appear to seize this opportunity and use it as a
smokescreen!

Chris



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

Good luck!

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

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

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

e = mc^2 energy supplied by the source

m = e/c^2 mass lost to radiation

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

Corriolis force
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Each famous scientist wrote his own Electrodynamics.
Best regards,S*

i think you and art should get together and write one, it is sure to be a
best seller for years! i would buy one just to read when i need a good
laugh!

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

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

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

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

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

Corriolis force
 

"christofire" wrote
...

"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.

So you should be able to repeat the phenomena. Richard did not: " I worked
four years in a European shortwave
broadcast station and I don`t remember any frequency doubling but we
aspired to hit the ionosphere with enough power to drive it into extreme
nonlinearity end impose our signal en all the others in the area ala
Luxembourg."

Help him.
S*

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?


* Yes: the late John D Kraus. He was a practical engineer as well as a
theoretician and his native language was English. He managed to put into
practice a lot of the theory that others had written about and he recorded
his work lucidly. I've already named two of Kraus's books - can you cite
something written by any of your favourites that provides clear
explanations that you understand? Answers.com doesn't explain anything
technical.

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.


Hertz was the pupil of Helmholtz.
The Maxwell's equations (that from 1864) was the same like the Helmholtz'
for fluid mechanics.
Many textbooks inform us that it was a big Maxwell's mistake. He ignored
atomic nature of electricity disovered by Faraday at electrolise.
Helmholtz not ignored it.
Maxwell (modified by Heaviside) is only a piece to teach the math.


* Heaviside's documentation is appaling! I remember going through a
catalogue of his work in an effort to get to the truth about the origin of
the 'Heaviside condition' - a lot of it was written in obfuscation babble,
a bit like some of the contributors to this group.

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


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

The math has not to do here.

* What 'math'? ... just the mention of scalars and vectors, in a group
devoted to antennas. Please.

The first step should be dicovering which part of the oryginal Hertz
dipole radiate:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

The big sparks (current) or the plates (balls).
Note that todays dipoles are quite different. Now no current between
the tips.


Here is the full acoustic analogy. The two loudspeakers work like the
two monopoles.

* Rubbish. What 'two loudspeakers'? Ever heard of a horn
loudspeaker? ... it produces longitudinal pressure waves.

Why then the two loudspeaker and the two monopoles have the same
directional patern?

* What 'two loudspeaker'? If you're drawing comparison between a
direct-radiator loudspeaker and a dipole and using that as a basis for
saying that EM waves are longitudinal, as I suspect you are, then you
should also consider a horn loudspeaker. Sound is radiated from the
mouth of a horn 'speaker and the other side of the compression driver
diaphragm can be totally enclosed. There is no simple comparison with a
dipole antenna in this case.

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

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

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

Chris

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote
...

"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.

So you should be able to repeat the phenomena. Richard did not: " I worked
four years in a European shortwave
broadcast station and I don`t remember any frequency doubling but we
aspired to hit the ionosphere with enough power to drive it into extreme
nonlinearity end impose our signal en all the others in the area ala
Luxembourg."

Help him.
S*


Huh?

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

What I wrote doesn't conflict with that.

Perhaps it's a language difficulty on your part.

Chris

Corriolis force
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:
Interesting you
quote the electron gun. ... So where did this photon emerge from?

The electron is the gun, the photons are the bullets.
Quoting Feynman's "QED": "So now, I present to you the
three basic actions, from which all of the phenomena
of light and electrons arise.

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

For an RF antenna radiator, the electrons go from
place to place in (on) the conductor in the form
of free electrons. The photons go from place to place
in the space surrounding the conductor. Only the
photons can move at the speed of light from the
feedpoint to the ends of a dipole. Electrons move
hardly at all.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com


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

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

Chris

Corriolis force
 

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

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

e = mc^2 energy supplied by the source

m = e/c^2 mass lost to radiation

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

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

Never mind.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

-- snip --

Do you know somebody who has more proven reputation in acoustic and
electrodynamics than Helmholtz?


* Yes: the late John D Kraus. He was a practical engineer as well as a
theoretician and his native language was English. He managed to put into
practice a lot of the theory that others had written about and he
recorded his work lucidly. I've already named two of Kraus's books - can
you cite something written by any of your favourites that provides clear
explanations that you understand? Answers.com doesn't explain anything
technical.

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.

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


* Heaviside's documentation is appaling! I remember going through a
catalogue of his work in an effort to get to the truth about the origin
of the 'Heaviside condition' - a lot of it was written in obfuscation
babble, a bit like some of the contributors to this group.

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

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


* What 'two loudspeaker'? If you're drawing comparison between a
direct-radiator loudspeaker and a dipole and using that as a basis for
saying that EM waves are longitudinal, as I suspect you are, then you
should also consider a horn loudspeaker. Sound is radiated from the
mouth of a horn 'speaker and the other side of the compression driver
diaphragm can be totally enclosed. There is no simple comparison with
a dipole antenna in this case.

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

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

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

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

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

Chris

Corriolis force
 

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

Never mind.

Hi Mike,

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

-- snip --


* Would you care to cite a reference where it is stated that EM waves
in the far field of a transmitting antenna contain a significant
longitudinal component? Many respected authors, such as Kraus, have
illustrated the contrary, but their work isn't limited to paper;
people like Kraus have designed real antennas of types that are still
in use today.

Maxwell ASSUMED that the aether is a solid body and ASSUMED that there
are the transversal waves. Next he do the math to it. To prove it he
asks Michelson to measure the movements of the Earth in this solid
body. In 1878 (about) Michelson did not detect 30km/s. In 1925 he
detect 0.4 km/s. It means that the eather is not a solid body. The EM
theory is only math (a piece to teach).

* You haven't cited a reference. The words you have written here do
not demonstrate that EM waves are longitudinal. A 'reference', if you
didn't understand the term, means a passage from a book or paper
written by someone who has a proven reputation for good, useful work in
the field.

" Oliver Heaviside criticised Helmholtz' electromagnetic theory because
it allowed the existence of longitudinal waves" .From:
http://www.answers.com/topic/hermann-von-helmholtz

Do you know somebody who has more proven reputation in acoustic and
electrodynamics than Helmholtz?


* Yes: the late John D Kraus. He was a practical engineer as well as a
theoretician and his native language was English. He managed to put into
practice a lot of the theory that others had written about and he
recorded his work lucidly. I've already named two of Kraus's books - can
you cite something written by any of your favourites that provides clear
explanations that you understand? Answers.com doesn't explain anything
technical.

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.


Hertz was the pupil of Helmholtz.
The Maxwell's equations (that from 1864) was the same like the
Helmholtz' for fluid mechanics.
Many textbooks inform us that it was a big Maxwell's mistake. He ignored
atomic nature of electricity disovered by Faraday at electrolise.
Helmholtz not ignored it.
Maxwell (modified by Heaviside) is only a piece to teach the math.


* Heaviside's documentation is appaling! I remember going through a
catalogue of his work in an effort to get to the truth about the origin
of the 'Heaviside condition' - a lot of it was written in obfuscation
babble, a bit like some of the contributors to this group.

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


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

The math has not to do here.

* What 'math'? ... just the mention of scalars and vectors, in a
group devoted to antennas. Please.

The first step should be dicovering which part of the oryginal Hertz
dipole radiate:
http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

The big sparks (current) or the plates (balls).
Note that todays dipoles are quite different. Now no current between
the tips.


Here is the full acoustic analogy. The two loudspeakers work like
the two monopoles.

* Rubbish. What 'two loudspeakers'? Ever heard of a horn
loudspeaker? ... it produces longitudinal pressure waves.

Why then the two loudspeaker and the two monopoles have the same
directional patern?

* What 'two loudspeaker'? If you're drawing comparison between a
direct-radiator loudspeaker and a dipole and using that as a basis for
saying that EM waves are longitudinal, as I suspect you are, then you
should also consider a horn loudspeaker. Sound is radiated from the
mouth of a horn 'speaker and the other side of the compression driver
diaphragm can be totally enclosed. There is no simple comparison with
a dipole antenna in this case.

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

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

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

Chris


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

Corriolis force
 

"christofire" wrote in message
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

-- snip --

Do you know somebody who has more proven reputation in acoustic and
electrodynamics than Helmholtz?


* Yes: the late John D Kraus. He was a practical engineer as well as a
theoretician and his native language was English. He managed to put
into practice a lot of the theory that others had written about and he
recorded his work lucidly. I've already named two of Kraus's books -
can you cite something written by any of your favourites that provides
clear explanations that you understand? Answers.com doesn't explain
anything technical.

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.

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


* Heaviside's documentation is appaling! I remember going through a
catalogue of his work in an effort to get to the truth about the origin
of the 'Heaviside condition' - a lot of it was written in obfuscation
babble, a bit like some of the contributors to this group.

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

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


* What 'two loudspeaker'? If you're drawing comparison between a
direct-radiator loudspeaker and a dipole and using that as a basis for
saying that EM waves are longitudinal, as I suspect you are, then you
should also consider a horn loudspeaker. Sound is radiated from the
mouth of a horn 'speaker and the other side of the compression driver
diaphragm can be totally enclosed. There is no simple comparison with
a dipole antenna in this case.

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

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

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

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

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

Chris

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

Corriolis force
 

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

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

Corriolis force
 

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

It's a cite from Einstein, et al.

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

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

Corriolis force
 

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

Never mind.

Hi Mike,

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

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

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

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

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

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


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

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

Chris

Corriolis force
 

christofire wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

Chris

Yes.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Corriolis force
 

"christofire" wrote in message
...

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

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


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

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

Chris


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

Corriolis force
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote in message
...

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

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


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

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

Chris


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


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

Chris


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