Corriolis force
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.

But for real engineers math is everything. If you can't back it up with
figures, you're only guessing.

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

Dave wrote:

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

Egad, not at all.

The elements we use in circuit analysis, for example -- pure
resistances, capacitances, inductances, sources, and so forth -- are all
impossible to make. Yet we know their properties in exacting detail. One
cannot cut a stick to a length of exactly pi meters, yet the properties
of pi are precisely known. For that matter, we can't even make a stick
that's exactly one meter long, but the meter is very well defined.

Those are just a very few of the vast number of things which are
impossible to make yet whose properties are known. Math, science and
engineering wouldn't be possible without them.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Corriolis force
 

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:27:40 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

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

Hi Mike,

Of late, I have been reading Herman Melville's "The Confidence Man." I
won't go into the plot (it strained the conventions of the day -
1850s) but mention one vignette where a kid was hustling two gentlemen
on a river boat on the Mississippi. When the kid struck a deal, he
sweetened it with a pamphlet on how to recognize counterfeit paper
money.

It seems that pamphlets like this wete very necessary back when any
bank could print their own bills (something like the great hornswaggle
of Wall Street). The banks then had to print pamphlets on how to
recognize the exquisite detail work of engraving on their bills so you
would recognize the 'real stuff.'

What is interesting is that the counterfeiters wrote their own
pamphlets too, describing the exquisite details in their engraving....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Corriolis force
 

"christofire" wrote
...

"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'.

In the 'Luxembourg effect' was the frequency doubling. The LW were receiwed
as the MW.


What I wrote doesn't conflict with that.

Perhaps it's a language difficulty on your part.

"the waves are radiated by the whole length of the connecting wire and are
transverse... there is no frequency doubling as you explain it."
You prefer the cross modulation - I prefer the two sources.
S*

Corriolis force
 

"tom" wrote
. net...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.

But for real engineers math is everything. If you can't back it up with
figures, you're only guessing.

The figures are also in empiric equations. Engineers use only such.
S*

Corriolis force
 

"christofire" wrote
...

"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.

They make calculations using empirical equations.

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.

It si very funny to read this. Todays engineers use the Ampere,Gauss, Weber
Electrodynamisc but are sure that they use the Maxwell's.


* 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.

He use (probably) the term voltage. Voltage is the same as pressure or the
electron density. Is the voltage the necessary concept or no?
And what about the mass of electrons in the books?

* 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,
Not me. It is Helmholtz and many others.

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.

Dan Russel do not state enything about EM. EM waves will be always
transversal because such we assumed before writting the math. Real electric
waves radiated by one monopole end two monopoles you can see on this
animation.

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

Dave is right: "only if you take it seriously... i consider it great
entertainment"

It is very funny that radio enginners do not know that they do not use the
Maxwell's model of the eather.
S*

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 7, 6:00*pm, wrote:
Nope, the energy in both the tube of marbles and the walking stick
travels at the speed of sound in the medium.

What happens when the walking stick is traveling faster than
the speed of sound?

....Keith

Corriolis force
 

christofire wrote:
Extrapolating, if an incompressible/inextensible rod or
string could be made, wouldn't that permit communication faster than the
speed of light?

Faster than light communications has already happened.
Entangled particles communicate with each other
instantaneously over any distance. Some say it
proves that reality is non-local but is being
projected from somewhere else. Question is: Who is
running the projector? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Corriolis force
 

christofire wrote:
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?

Years ago, quantum tunneling was reported to have passed
information at faster than the speed of light. I haven't
heard anything about that lately.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Corriolis force
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
What happens when the walking stick is traveling faster than
the speed of sound?

Exactly how much faster?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 8, 7:31*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
christofire wrote:
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?

Years ago, quantum tunneling was reported to have passed
information at faster than the speed of light. I haven't
heard anything about that lately.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

I think there are two main avenues of thinking on the phenomenon known
as quantum tunneling being faster than the speed of light. One is
that other dimensions are involved. Data is not traveling faster than
the speed of light, it is just taking a short cut. The other is that
the data was wrong.

Jimmie

Corriolis force
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
On Sep 7, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:
Nope, the energy in both the tube of marbles and the walking stick
travels at the speed of sound in the medium.

What happens when the walking stick is traveling faster than
the speed of sound?

...Keith

It makes a big hole in the old lady's ceiling.

Actually, the energy travels through the building structure at the speed
of sound, not the walking stick, which has energy of momentum until it
hits the ceiling.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Corriolis force
 

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 06:57:13 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

I think there are two main avenues of thinking on the phenomenon known
as quantum tunneling being faster than the speed of light.

As quantum tunneling occurs millions to billions of times per second
in every antenna in the world, it would seem that faster-than-light
operation would have been observed by now (something of an oxymoron
there in this irony, isn't it?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Corriolis force
 

Richard Clark wrote:
As quantum tunneling occurs millions to billions of times per second
in every antenna in the world, ...

"For (quantum tunneling) effects to occur there must
be a situation where a thin region of 'medium type 2'
is sandwiched between two regions of 'medium type 1'"

In an aluminum/copper antenna, what exactly makes
up the two medium 1 regions and what exactly makes
up the thin region of medium 2?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"tom" wrote
. net...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.

But for real engineers math is everything. If you can't back it up with
figures, you're only guessing.

The figures are also in empiric equations. Engineers use only such.
S*

you have obviously never been an engineer... except maybe the type that
drives a train.

Corriolis force
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"tom" wrote
. net...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.

But for real engineers math is everything. If you can't back it up with
figures, you're only guessing.

The figures are also in empiric equations. Engineers use only such.
S*

you have obviously never been an engineer... except maybe the type that
drives a train.

In this book:
http://books.google.pl/books?id=f3as...age&q=&f=false

no equations, no terms like transversal and so on. Sometimes the Authors
include a math theory. Each math theory has some simplifications. In nature
not separate transverse and longitudinal waves. The math is separate.
Maxwell was the genius. He made the ether model as a solid body. For Him it
was very easy. He also wrote 60 pages of equations for the Saturn rings. He
was also able to write a math for liquid or gas ether. But he lived too
short.

I wanted to know if radio people observe the frequency doubling when
receiving signals from a dipole. It should be easy to check it.
For me is enough to know (from this Group) that such was observed and is
known as the Luxembourg effect.
S*

Corriolis force
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
In nature not separate transverse and longitudinal waves.

Longitudinal waves require a medium. For many years,
empty space was considered to be empty. We now know
that "empty" space is not empty and has a structure
that teems with quantum particles, i.e. the "aether"
actually exists although not in the conventional
matter form that was earlier assumed.

I wanted to know if radio people observe the frequency doubling when
receiving signals from a dipole.

Frequency doubling can occur in non-linear systems.
Every powered transistor stage has a certain degree
of non-linearity. A passive antenna system is usually
linear.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Corriolis force
 

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

It's a cite from Einstein, et al.


So that's what his middle name is! 8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
In nature not separate transverse and longitudinal waves.

Longitudinal waves require a medium. For many years,
empty space was considered to be empty. We now know
that "empty" space is not empty and has a structure
that teems with quantum particles, i.e. the "aether"
actually exists although not in the conventional
matter form that was earlier assumed.

Sound waves propagate in conventionall matter form (gas, liquid, solid).
They always have the two components (transverse and longitudinal). In
practice is the full analogy acoustic waves - electric waves.
It is not easy to to describe the aether. But it exists in common term "eter
waves". The ether waves are artifically produced and for this reason we know
more about them. To produce them we do not need to know if they are electric
or EM.
After some time will be clear which vision (Ampere or Heaviside) is in
agreement with practice,

I wanted to know if radio people observe the frequency doubling when
receiving signals from a dipole.

Frequency doubling can occur in non-linear systems.
Every powered transistor stage has a certain degree
of non-linearity. A passive antenna system is usually
linear.

You are saying about frequency changing. Are many ways to decrease a
frequency and a few to increase. Doubling is a special case of increasing.
In the Luxembourg effect no frequency doubling in above sense. All antenas
radiate in complex way. It is also obvious that it radiate from different
parts. That radiation from different parts may be not in phase at the
receiver. They may be in the opposite phase (like for dipoles). Here is the
key. Opposite phase means also the two pulses in one cycle. Each receiver
has its own resonant frequency. In the result long waves were received as
medium waves with the twice more frequency. There were no doubling in your
understanding.
S*

Corriolis force
 

Szczepan Białek wrote:


"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Szczepan Białek wrote:
In nature not separate transverse and longitudinal waves.

Longitudinal waves require a medium. For many years,
empty space was considered to be empty. We now know
that "empty" space is not empty and has a structure
that teems with quantum particles, i.e. the "aether"
actually exists although not in the conventional
matter form that was earlier assumed.

Sound waves propagate in conventionall matter form (gas, liquid, solid).
They always have the two components (transverse and longitudinal). In
practice is the full analogy acoustic waves - electric waves.

If you are saying that propagation of sound and radio are the same, you'll
have a lot of work to make me believe that.

It is not easy to to describe the aether. But it exists in common term
"eter waves". The ether waves are artifically produced and for this reason
we know more about them. To produce them we do not need to know if they
are electric or EM.
After some time will be clear which vision (Ampere or Heaviside) is in
agreement with practice,

I wanted to know if radio people observe the frequency doubling when
receiving signals from a dipole.

Frequency doubling can occur in non-linear systems.
Every powered transistor stage has a certain degree
of non-linearity. A passive antenna system is usually
linear.

You are saying about frequency changing. Are many ways to decrease a
frequency and a few to increase. Doubling is a special case of increasing.
In the Luxembourg effect no frequency doubling in above sense. All antenas
radiate in complex way. It is also obvious that it radiate from different
parts. That radiation from different parts may be not in phase at the
receiver. They may be in the opposite phase (like for dipoles). Here is
the key. Opposite phase means also the two pulses in one cycle.

You have no understanding about how two signals combine at an antenna.

Each
receiver has its own resonant frequency. In the result long waves were
received as medium waves with the twice more frequency. There were no
doubling in your understanding.

You really need to understand the difference between linear systems
and non-linear systems. Do some reading to understand how two signals
interact in each type of system.

Once you understand the math (yes, it IS important), you may see how cross
modulation occurs.


S*

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"tom" wrote
. net...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

For practical engineers the math theory is useless.

But for real engineers math is everything. If you can't back it up
with figures, you're only guessing.

The figures are also in empiric equations. Engineers use only such.
S*

you have obviously never been an engineer... except maybe the type that
drives a train.

In this book:
http://books.google.pl/books?id=f3as...age&q=&f=false

no equations, no terms like transversal and so on. Sometimes the Authors
include a math theory. Each math theory has some simplifications. In
nature not separate transverse and longitudinal waves. The math is
separate. Maxwell was the genius. He made the ether model as a solid
body. For Him it was very easy. He also wrote 60 pages of equations for
the Saturn rings. He was also able to write a math for liquid or gas
ether. But he lived too short.

obviously that isn't an engineering text, that is a handbook similar to the
arrl antenna book, it looks like it presents very basic theory and practical
design equations. go read kraus or jackson for real engineering education
texts on electromagnetic stuff.



I wanted to know if radio people observe the frequency doubling when
receiving signals from a dipole. It should be easy to check it.
For me is enough to know (from this Group) that such was observed and is
known as the Luxembourg effect.
S*



no we don't. and yet, it would be painfully obvious here running
multi-operator in contests with harmonically related bands. it just doesn't
happen the way you are dreaming.

Corriolis force
 

"joe" ...
Szczepan Białek wrote:


"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Szczepan Białek wrote:
In nature not separate transverse and longitudinal waves.

Longitudinal waves require a medium. For many years,
empty space was considered to be empty. We now know
that "empty" space is not empty and has a structure
that teems with quantum particles, i.e. the "aether"
actually exists although not in the conventional
matter form that was earlier assumed.

Sound waves propagate in conventionall matter form (gas, liquid, solid).
They always have the two components (transverse and longitudinal). In
practice is the full analogy acoustic waves - electric waves.

If you are saying that propagation of sound and radio are the same, you'll
have a lot of work to make me believe that.

Let us start then. Do you know a phenomenon which is not common?

It is not easy to to describe the aether. But it exists in common term
"eter waves". The ether waves are artifically produced and for this
reason
we know more about them. To produce them we do not need to know if they
are electric or EM.
After some time will be clear which vision (Ampere or Heaviside) is in
agreement with practice,

I wanted to know if radio people observe the frequency doubling when
receiving signals from a dipole.

Frequency doubling can occur in non-linear systems.
Every powered transistor stage has a certain degree
of non-linearity. A passive antenna system is usually
linear.

You are saying about frequency changing. Are many ways to decrease a
frequency and a few to increase. Doubling is a special case of
increasing.
In the Luxembourg effect no frequency doubling in above sense. All
antenas
radiate in complex way. It is also obvious that it radiate from different
parts. That radiation from different parts may be not in phase at the
receiver. They may be in the opposite phase (like for dipoles). Here is
the key. Opposite phase means also the two pulses in one cycle.

You have no understanding about how two signals combine at an antenna.

Each
receiver has its own resonant frequency. In the result long waves were
received as medium waves with the twice more frequency. There were no
doubling in your understanding.

You really need to understand the difference between linear systems
and non-linear systems. Do some reading to understand how two signals
interact in each type of system.

Once you understand the math (yes, it IS important), you may see how cross
modulation occurs.

Now no math for electrons. All is for incompressible massless fluid.
S*


S*

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"joe" ...
Szczepan Białek wrote:


"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Szczepan Białek wrote:
In nature not separate transverse and longitudinal waves.

Longitudinal waves require a medium. For many years,
empty space was considered to be empty. We now know
that "empty" space is not empty and has a structure
that teems with quantum particles, i.e. the "aether"
actually exists although not in the conventional
matter form that was earlier assumed.

Sound waves propagate in conventionall matter form (gas, liquid, solid).
They always have the two components (transverse and longitudinal). In
practice is the full analogy acoustic waves - electric waves.

If you are saying that propagation of sound and radio are the same,
you'll
have a lot of work to make me believe that.

Let us start then. Do you know a phenomenon which is not common?


* Polarisation, of course!

I suppose you're going to tell us now that sound waves are polarised!

Chris

Corriolis force
 

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


The figures are also in empiric equations. Engineers use only such.
S*

you have obviously never been an engineer... except maybe the type that
drives a train.

In this book:
http://books.google.pl/books?id=f3as...age&q=&f=false

no equations, no terms like transversal and so on. Sometimes the Authors
include a math theory. Each math theory has some simplifications. In
nature not separate transverse and longitudinal waves. The math is
separate. Maxwell was the genius. He made the ether model as a solid
body. For Him it was very easy. He also wrote 60 pages of equations for
the Saturn rings. He was also able to write a math for liquid or gas
ether. But he lived too short.

obviously that isn't an engineering text, that is a handbook similar to
the arrl antenna book, it looks like it presents very basic theory and
practical design equations. go read kraus or jackson for real engineering
education texts on electromagnetic stuff.

Maxwell PROPOSED the EM model of aether. All teachers use it to teach the
math.
The "very basic theory and practical design equations" are based on the
electron behaviour.
In EM no electrons which are compressible and have the inertia.
Do you belive that the "displacement current" exist?.
It is the result of ASSUMPTION that electricity is a incompressible massless
fluid.

I wanted to know if radio people observe the frequency doubling when
receiving signals from a dipole. It should be easy to check it.
For me is enough to know (from this Group) that such was observed and is
known as the Luxembourg effect.

no we don't.

We now. But in 1930 they did.
S*

Corriolis force
 

"christofire" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...


Sound waves propagate in conventionall matter form (gas, liquid,
solid).
They always have the two components (transverse and longitudinal). In
practice is the full analogy acoustic waves - electric waves.

If you are saying that propagation of sound and radio are the same,
you'll
have a lot of work to make me believe that.

Let us start then. Do you know a phenomenon which is not common?


* Polarisation, of course!

I suppose you're going to tell us now that sound waves are polarised!

And you tell us that radiation from monopoles antennas is polarised.
There was a topic polarisation. In wave area is term alignment when we have
the two sources. Aligment of "dipoles" not means that waves are
"transverse".
In the reality no transverse waves. Waves appear in compressible medium. All
waves are the "pressure" waves. In math you can assume incompressibility.
But we here NO.
S*


Chris

Corriolis force
 

joe wrote:


If you are saying that propagation of sound and radio are the same, you'll
have a lot of work to make me believe that.

Yeah, you beat me to the punch........


Now if i might digress a moment, with a situation that is a little
similar. I had a colleague who had some odd ideas about other things
propagating.

bodily function alert!

His idea was that farts were little bits, particles if you will, of
fecal matter that propagated out of one's posterior and transported
themselves to other people's noses. Dunno if those particles had any
spin tho'. I will allow other readers to determine if any similarities
exist here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...


Sound waves propagate in conventionall matter form (gas, liquid,
solid).
They always have the two components (transverse and longitudinal). In
practice is the full analogy acoustic waves - electric waves.

If you are saying that propagation of sound and radio are the same,
you'll
have a lot of work to make me believe that.

Let us start then. Do you know a phenomenon which is not common?


* Polarisation, of course!

I suppose you're going to tell us now that sound waves are polarised!

And you tell us that radiation from monopoles antennas is polarised.
There was a topic polarisation. In wave area is term alignment when we
have the two sources. Aligment of "dipoles" not means that waves are
"transverse".
In the reality no transverse waves. Waves appear in compressible medium.
All waves are the "pressure" waves. In math you can assume
incompressibility. But we here NO.
S*


Chris



Google turns up 44,200 hits for monopole antenna polarization - I was pretty
sure my monopole radiated polarized 'waves'.

Dave

Corriolis force
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

And you tell us that radiation from monopoles antennas is polarised.
There was a topic polarisation. In wave area is term alignment when we
have the two sources. Aligment of "dipoles" not means that waves are
"transverse".
In the reality no transverse waves. Waves appear in compressible medium.
All waves are the "pressure" waves. In math you can assume
incompressibility. But we here NO.
S*

So, pray tell, explain the physics of a vertically polarized pressure wave.

You obviously know what's going on here, and I do not. Please educate me.

tom
K0TAR

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 10, 5:35*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
And you tell us that radiation from monopoles antennas is polarised.
_____________

S*, you might want to conduct a simple and practical test of your
belief for yourself, to learn whether or not it is true.

A great many/almost all MW, AM broadcast stations use an antenna
system comprised of one or more vertical monopoles. Such vertical-
only polarisation greatly reduces the propagation loss for the ground
wave, and so increases the ground wave coverage area -- whether or not
a MW station has a directional radiation pattern in the horizontal
plane.

Such was scientifically investigated and scientifically proven many
decades ago. This reality is _very_ important to the commercial
success of AM broadcast stations.

Most compact, and inexpensive MW AM broadcast receivers use an
integrated, ferrite core "loopstick" receive antenna.

When such receivers are oriented with their control legends and
displays aligned in the horizontal plane, as when the bottom/back of
the receiver is sitting on a table, they respond most efficiently to
vertically-polarised electromagnetic waves.

THE TEST:

Using such an AM receiver and physical setup, tune to a moderately-
powered, omnidirectional MW broadcast station located at least 20 km
away from your receive location. Then rotate the receiver 360 degrees
around its vertical axis.

With no co-channel signals, you will find that the received signal-to-
noise ratio for that station goes through two, distinct nulls
corresponding to the physical orientations of its receive antenna that
are 180 degrees apart, and along a line of sight from your receive
location to the location of the transmit antenna.

This result demonstrates that such radiation is (vertically)
polarised.

RF

Corriolis force
 

tom wrote:

So, pray tell, explain the physics of a vertically polarized pressure wave.

You obviously know what's going on here, and I do not. Please educate me.

Sigh - Tom, there is not often the need to be sarcastic when you are
correct! 8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Corriolis force
 

"Richard Fry" wrote
...
On Sep 10, 5:35 am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
And you tell us that radiation from monopoles antennas is polarised.
_____________

S*, you might want to conduct a simple and practical test of your
belief for yourself, to learn whether or not it is true.

A great many/almost all MW, AM broadcast stations use an antenna
system comprised of one or more vertical monopoles.

So you know what is the directivity and phasing.

Such vertical-only polarisation greatly reduces the propagation loss for
the ground
wave, and so increases the ground wave coverage area -- whether or not
a MW station has a directional radiation pattern in the horizontal
plane.

Two vertical monopoles not in phase are like one horizontal dipole. In phase
are like two sources.

Such was scientifically investigated and scientifically proven many
decades ago. This reality is _very_ important to the commercial
success of AM broadcast stations.

Most compact, and inexpensive MW AM broadcast receivers use an
integrated, ferrite core "loopstick" receive antenna.

When such receivers are oriented with their control legends and
displays aligned in the horizontal plane, as when the bottom/back of
the receiver is sitting on a table, they respond most efficiently to
vertically-polarised electromagnetic waves.

When the two sources work the receiver must be propery "algned" (physically
oriented).

THE TEST:

Using such an AM receiver and physical setup, tune to a moderately-
powered, omnidirectional MW broadcast station located at least 20 km
away from your receive location. Then rotate the receiver 360 degrees
around its vertical axis.

With no co-channel signals, you will find that the received signal-to-
noise ratio for that station goes through two, distinct nulls
corresponding to the physical orientations of its receive antenna that
are 180 degrees apart, and along a line of sight from your receive
location to the location of the transmit antenna.

This result demonstrates that such radiation is (vertically)
polarised.

If two sources work, interference take place. Equipments are "polarised" not
waves.

I have not possibility to "conduct any simple and practical test". In the
other topic you wrote: "Only thing is that my plots are based on 1/2-wave
antennas." If it means that you have possbilities to measure a directional
radiation pattern then do such:

The TEST:
1. Measure the pattern for a declared frequency,
2. Measure the pattern for the doubled frequency,

Tell us the findings.
Already I have proposed it to Wim. Now I am proposed it to all of You.
S*


RF

Corriolis force
 

"Dave Holford" wrote
...


Google turns up 44,200 hits for monopole antenna polarization - I was
pretty sure my monopole radiated polarized 'waves'.

If monopole radiate from wire (many sources in line) without tipping there
is a pseudo-polarization.
For this reason tipping is sometimes used.
S*

Corriolis force
 

"tom" wrote
. net...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

And you tell us that radiation from monopoles antennas is polarised.
There was a topic polarisation. In wave area is term alignment when we
have the two sources. Aligment of "dipoles" not means that waves are
"transverse".
In the reality no transverse waves. Waves appear in compressible medium.
All waves are the "pressure" waves. In math you can assume
incompressibility. But we here NO.
S*

So, pray tell, explain the physics of a vertically polarized pressure
wave.

One wave is not polarised. The two pressure waves from the two sources
interfere. See "Directivity and phasing".

You obviously know what's going on here, and I do not. Please educate me.

"This fourth edition blends, in Joseph J. Carr's words, "the theoretical
concepts that the engineers and others need to design practical antennas,
and the hard-learned practical lessons derived from actually building and
using antennas -real antennas, and the hard-earned practical lessons derived
from actually building and using antennas - real antennas made of real
metal - not merely theoretical constructs on a blackboard."

Now is the electronic era. Electronic is from electrons. They are
compressible and have the inertia. You all construct antennas where
electrons build up voltage. But on the blackboard are math for
incompressible fluid. Look at the famous equations - there no voltage at all
(only current).
If somebody do math for electrons then such math will be on the blackboards.
But it is not necessary. The beautifull EM equations are the same like for
fluid mechanics. They will be saved. Radio engineers do not use them and can
wait for the proper ones the next centuries.
S*

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"tom" wrote
. net...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

And you tell us that radiation from monopoles antennas is polarised.
There was a topic polarisation. In wave area is term alignment when we
have the two sources. Aligment of "dipoles" not means that waves are
"transverse".
In the reality no transverse waves. Waves appear in compressible medium.
All waves are the "pressure" waves. In math you can assume
incompressibility. But we here NO.
S*

So, pray tell, explain the physics of a vertically polarized pressure
wave.

One wave is not polarised. The two pressure waves from the two sources
interfere. See "Directivity and phasing".

You obviously know what's going on here, and I do not. Please educate
me.

"This fourth edition blends, in Joseph J. Carr's words, "the theoretical
concepts that the engineers and others need to design practical antennas,
and the hard-learned practical lessons derived from actually building and
using antennas -real antennas, and the hard-earned practical lessons
derived from actually building and using antennas - real antennas made of
real metal - not merely theoretical constructs on a blackboard."

Now is the electronic era. Electronic is from electrons. They are
compressible and have the inertia. You all construct antennas where
electrons build up voltage. But on the blackboard are math for
incompressible fluid.

no it isn't. you are obviously way out of date. stop looking way in the
past for theories that were obviously disproven decades ago and look at
modern texts to see which ones have survived 100+ years of experimental
evidence.

Look at the famous equations - there no voltage at all (only current).

in any electronic system you really only need voltage OR current, they are
always related by the impedance. So if you read modern texts you will often
see that they derive equations in either voltage or current form then show
the other form for reference, or sometimes leave it as an excercise for the
student.

If somebody do math for electrons then such math will be on the
blackboards.
But it is not necessary. The beautifull EM equations are the same like for
fluid mechanics. They will be saved. Radio engineers do not use them and
can wait for the proper ones the next centuries.

no, real engineers are trying to educate people like you who are stuck in
the past with outdated theories and simplified misconceptions... or we could
just ignore you and hope you go away quickly. personally i think it is more
fun to watch what comes out of the mouths of babes when you tickle their
feet.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 11, 2:39*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
If two sources work, interference take place. Equipments
are "polarised" not waves.
__________________

The net, far-field radiation of two vertical monopoles in a
directional array driven by one transmitter using a power dividing
network is vertically polarised -- because both monopole sources are
vertically polarised.

This type of array is commonly used in commercial AM broadcasting, and
its characteristics (including its polarisation) have been accurately
known for many decades.

RF

Corriolis force
 

Szczepan Białek wrote:

"Dave Holford" wrote
...


Google turns up 44,200 hits for monopole antenna polarization - I was
pretty sure my monopole radiated polarized 'waves'.

If monopole radiate from wire (many sources in line) without tipping there
is a pseudo-polarization.
For this reason tipping is sometimes used.
S*

Gibberish.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Corriolis force
 

U¿ytkownik "Richard Fry" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
On Sep 11, 2:39 am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
If two sources work, interference take place. Equipments
are "polarised" not waves.
__________________

The net, far-field radiation of two vertical monopoles in a
directional array driven by one transmitter using a power dividing
network is vertically polarised -- because both monopole sources are
vertically polarised.

This type of array is commonly used in commercial AM broadcasting, and
its characteristics (including its polarisation) have been accurately
known for many decades.

Most hams know that a vertical antenna creates a radio wave with vertical
polarization and a horizontal antenna creates a horizontally.

The both antennas (transmitter and receiver) should be aligned. You wrote:
"Most compact, and inexpensive MW AM broadcast receivers use an integrated,
ferrite core "loopstick" receive antenna.

When such receivers are oriented with their control legends and
displays aligned in the horizontal plane, as when the bottom/back of
the receiver is sitting on a table, "

It means that the waves are horizontaly polarized. Next you wrote"

"they respond most efficiently to vertically-polarised electromagnetic
waves." I assume that it is a small mistake.
The following is known for many decades:

One mast is omnidirectional. The two are directional like a horizontal
dipole. For this reason "This type of array is commonly used in commercial
AM broadcasting".

I wrote: "The TEST:
1. Measure the pattern for a declared frequency,
2. Measure the pattern for the doubled frequency.

Some clarification is necessary. The doubled frequency should be set on a
receiving/measuring device.
Each mast radiate omidirectionally. The radiation of the array of the two
interfere. Also in some places it may be received as the doubled frequency.
S*

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 11, 1:45*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
The both antennas (transmitter and receiver) should be aligned. You wrote:
"Most compact, and inexpensive MW AM broadcast receivers use an integrated,
ferrite core "loopstick" receive antenna.

When such receivers are oriented with their control legends and
displays aligned in the horizontal plane, as when the bottom/back of
the receiver is sitting on a table, "

S* then wrote:

It means that the waves are horizontaly polarized.

Not so. The receive antenna I described responds to the magnetic
field, not the electric field. In an EM wave these two fields are at
right angles to each other, and to the direction of travel.

The polarisation of a wave is given by the physical orientation of its
electric field. If that field is vertically polarised then the
receive antenna I described will receive maximum (magnetic) field, and
my experiment will prove that the incoming EM wave is vertically
polarised.

One mast is omnidirectional. The two are directional like a horizontal
dipole.

However a horizontal dipole radiates horizontally polarised waves. A
directional MW array radiates vertically polarized waves, regardless
of the shape of its azimuth pattern.

RF

Corriolis force
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

U¿ytkownik "Richard Fry" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
On Sep 11, 2:39 am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
If two sources work, interference take place. Equipments
are "polarised" not waves.
__________________

The net, far-field radiation of two vertical monopoles in a
directional array driven by one transmitter using a power dividing
network is vertically polarised -- because both monopole sources are
vertically polarised.

This type of array is commonly used in commercial AM broadcasting, and
its characteristics (including its polarisation) have been accurately
known for many decades.

Most hams know that a vertical antenna creates a radio wave with vertical
polarization and a horizontal antenna creates a horizontally.

The both antennas (transmitter and receiver) should be aligned. You wrote:
"Most compact, and inexpensive MW AM broadcast receivers use an
integrated, ferrite core "loopstick" receive antenna.

When such receivers are oriented with their control legends and
displays aligned in the horizontal plane, as when the bottom/back of
the receiver is sitting on a table, "

It means that the waves are horizontaly polarized. Next you wrote"

"they respond most efficiently to vertically-polarised electromagnetic
waves." I assume that it is a small mistake.
The following is known for many decades:

One mast is omnidirectional. The two are directional like a horizontal
dipole. For this reason "This type of array is commonly used in commercial
AM broadcasting".

I wrote: "The TEST:
1. Measure the pattern for a declared frequency,
2. Measure the pattern for the doubled frequency.

Some clarification is necessary. The doubled frequency should be set on a
receiving/measuring device.
Each mast radiate omidirectionally. The radiation of the array of the two
interfere. Also in some places it may be received as the doubled
frequency.
S*

no, it won't.

Corriolis force
 

On Sep 11, 4:43*pm, "Dave" wrote:
no, it won't.
__________

What scientific analysis/proof will provide to support your point of
view?

RF