"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.