Standing waves
 

On Sep 21, 7:33*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from *the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on, by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. *The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. *The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. *The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. *The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. *Krauss, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris

No it does not appear in Kraus book. He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium. To do that you must think in terms of
wavelength. After all with respect to science all revolve around
boundary laws of the Universe and you blindly ignore that fact.
Now back to radiation which applies spin to a p. Nowarticle where as
with a crt no spin is applied as it is heat that separates the resting
particle Now earlier you refered to a electrostatic field that
according to what you stated did not have a border and surely you know
that just can't be unless it is in equilibrium which requires a closed
circuit.
For this to come to fruition you go back to the boundary laws where
the arbitrary border is one that is closed i.e. in equilibrium. Now
cast your mind back to the Gauss extension where radiators and
particles lie in a closed static field. Now you should see that
equilibrium must reign for a closed static field. Now you blithely
mentioned an electrostatic field with nary a mention as to how it is
formed and how it fits into the whole picture.
Why? Because the books do not provide an unbroken trail that fully
describes radiation
( books admit that) as I have done where everything dove tails into
the existing laws of the Universe. And then I gave you a bonus with
respect to the weak field that Einstein searched for in vain. Einstein
looked at the package presented by the Big Bag but omitted to keep
that which it was wrapped into. That was the arbitrary boundary around
which were forces or vectors that were equal and opposite when a
smallest of smallest of particles edged out towards the border. Yes it
was of a weak force but for all of that it broke the equilibrium
boundary as the forces at that point was not now equal. The breakage
was one where the opposing forces were offset to each other thus
providing a torque force that provided spin. Now we come to our own
Earth encased in a arbitrary border and outside the border we have the
same conditions of equilibrium that must equal the forces of the Big
Bang which means the outside has two vectors, gravity vector which is
straight and a vector denoting spin i.e. rotation of the Earth. On the
other side of the border you again have two vectors a straight vector
and that curly one you don't like me to call eddy current.
Yup. Everything falls together nicely thank you, when you study
radiation from first principles instead of binding yourself to books
that readily admit to not understanding the radiation process. Now
this is not being arrogant when one has applied all principles but I
do think it is arrogant of you and others to asasinate the character
of "S" purely because of his english and spelling and not to help one
that wants to learn.
Just think about it all. I have shown how a particle moves in space in
a straight line trajectory such that the particle maintains a straight
line without the parabolic force of gravity driving it down to the
Earth. Go back to your books and show just how the electrostatic field
came about and what was the borders that it was contained in
Art
via applied spin and where gravity

Standing waves
 

Art Unwin wrote:

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the

Nice job on the name calling, dingbat.

So, which charged particle are you proposing is being accelerated here?
There are none that have no mass, which would mean that no particle
capable of being accelerated by an electrostatic field could exit at
"the speed of light because it has emmerged from the intersecting two
fields".

Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

On Sep 21, 8:43*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from *the

Nice job on the name calling, dingbat.

You do it all the time TOM , no reasons, just because!


So, which charged particle are you proposing is being accelerated here?
* There are none that have no mass, which would mean that no particle
capable of being accelerated by an electrostatic field could exit at
"the speed of light because it has emmerged from the intersecting two
fields".
You are talking garbage Tom in a attempt to sound educated.
When you introduce Newtons laws you are standing on the existence of
mass.
It was a particle with mass that broke the equilibrium of the Sun
which starts the whole cycle.
This mass is debris from the burning and release of energy from the
sun which ebbs and flows according to the 11 year sun spot cycle. It
is acknowledged that particles from the Universe are in the billions
per cubic meter in the Earths system and all these particles have
mass. The idea that neutrinos, a particle from the Sun had no mass was
dispelled years ago, so the Laws of Newton remains in place. This very
same action is shown with respect to a CRT where the particle which in
that case does not have spin. You will see that the particle is
accelerated within the borders of the electrostatic field which is
also intersected by a mgnetic field such that its path is parabolic
within the confines of the electrostatic field which becomes a
straight line travel without acelleration as it leaves the confines of
the electrostatic field. It is all quite simple Tom but you continue
to implant erronius data into the description as a basis to supply
insults.



Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool


tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool

So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 10:23*am, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool

So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 10:32*am, derek unwin wrote:
On Sep 22, 10:23*am, tom wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool

So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Read before you post. Plank!

Standing waves
 

On Sep 21, 9:23*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool

So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

You could go to college and learn all this but here goes.
Planck did a treatise on heat radiation where he stated that heat
radiation
is enabled by two independent functions. First was by conduction and
the second by a ray.
He went on to enlarge on the notion of a ray when is studies moved on
to radio and light radiation. He often consulted with Einstein and was
well aware of his efforts to find the weak force and where he gave up
on that and started a new science where he came up with mc sqd,. With
the abandoned search of Einstein Planck settled hard on the idea that
light was a radiated beam or wave of sorts and it was natural of him
to see radiation of heat in a similar manner i.e a wave or ray in a
similar way that light was thought of.
In fact his work moved later to the nature of light and radio
radiation where the theme of a ray or wave was retained. If Einstein
had included the wrappings of the Big Bang in his studies particles
would have retained the high ground for both him and Planck.
as well as this group together with science which has been misled to
this very day.
Thus Planck started on the wrong track with respect to heat radiation
and all of his other studies. Now he may have known what the speed of
light was but he would see it as a ray of light the same way as a ray
of heat. It was later found independently that a particle at the exit
from the combined field intersection was the speed of light which now
can be seen as the cause of light in connection with particle speed
i.e an effect and not a cause.
Since we note that wavelengths can denote a change of color the
connection of wavelength, spin ,deccelleration or what ever, directly
relates to the emmission of light.
So to answer your question the cause of this particular speed is the
interaction of two intesecting fields on a particle of mass. This same
particle is the same particle that emits light which cannot exceed the
speed attained in the combined fields since there is no
applied accellerating force applied to that same particle ,only
retardation. And this is the same particle that sits on a diamagnetic
material that is removed from a heated anode without spin but with an
increase in potential energy. Without spin this same particle
deccellerates before impacting on a luminescent glass surface of a CRT.

Standing waves
 

derek unwin wrote:

Read before you post. Plank!

Plank?

You don't even know the standard word which means "I'm blocking you
forever because your intelligence is less than dirt".

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:23 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?
There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool
So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

You could go to college and learn all this but here goes.
Planck did a treatise on heat radiation where he stated that heat
radiation
is enabled by two independent functions. First was by conduction and
the second by a ray.
He went on to enlarge on the notion of a ray when is studies moved on
to radio and light radiation. He often consulted with Einstein and was
well aware of his efforts to find the weak force and where he gave up
on that and started a new science where he came up with mc sqd,. With
the abandoned search of Einstein Planck settled hard on the idea that
light was a radiated beam or wave of sorts and it was natural of him
to see radiation of heat in a similar manner i.e a wave or ray in a
similar way that light was thought of.
In fact his work moved later to the nature of light and radio
radiation where the theme of a ray or wave was retained. If Einstein
had included the wrappings of the Big Bang in his studies particles
would have retained the high ground for both him and Planck.
as well as this group together with science which has been misled to
this very day.
Thus Planck started on the wrong track with respect to heat radiation
and all of his other studies. Now he may have known what the speed of
light was but he would see it as a ray of light the same way as a ray

Bafflegab.

of heat. It was later found independently that a particle at the exit
from the combined field intersection was the speed of light which now
can be seen as the cause of light in connection with particle speed
i.e an effect and not a cause.

Give references. This is the key to your argument, in case you can't
figure that out. It also breaks all current laws of physics.

Since we note that wavelengths can denote a change of color the
connection of wavelength, spin ,deccelleration or what ever, directly
relates to the emmission of light.
So to answer your question the cause of this particular speed is the
interaction of two intesecting fields on a particle of mass. This same
particle is the same particle that emits light which cannot exceed the
speed attained in the combined fields since there is no
applied accellerating force applied to that same particle ,only
retardation. And this is the same particle that sits on a diamagnetic
material that is removed from a heated anode without spin but with an
increase in potential energy. Without spin this same particle
deccellerates before impacting on a luminescent glass surface of a CRT.

So you admit you can't explain how to get a particle with mass to light
speed.

Fraud.

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

On Sep 21, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:23 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?
There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool
So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

You could go to college and learn all this but here goes.
Planck did a treatise on heat radiation where he stated that heat
radiation
is enabled by two independent functions. First was by conduction and
the second by a ray.
He went on to enlarge on the notion of a ray when is studies moved on
to radio and light radiation. He often consulted with Einstein and was
well aware of his efforts to find the weak force and where he gave up
on that and started a new science where he came up with mc sqd,. With
the abandoned search of Einstein Planck settled hard on the idea that
light was a radiated beam or wave of sorts and it was natural of him
to see radiation of heat in a similar manner i.e a wave or ray in a
similar way that light was thought of.
In fact his work moved later to the nature of light and radio
radiation where the theme of a ray or wave was retained. If Einstein
had included the wrappings of the Big Bang in his studies particles
would have retained the high ground for both him and Planck.
as well as this group together with science which has been misled to
this very day.
Thus Planck started on the wrong track with respect to heat radiation
and all of his other studies. Now he may have known what the speed of
light was but he would see it as a ray of light the same way as a ray

Bafflegab.

of heat. It was later found independently that a particle at the exit
from the combined field intersection was the speed of light which now
can be seen as the cause of light in connection with particle speed
i.e an effect and not a cause.

Give references. *This is the key to your argument, in case you can't
figure that out. *It also breaks all current laws of physics.

Since we note that wavelengths can denote a change of color the
connection of wavelength, spin ,deccelleration or what ever, directly
relates to the emmission of light.
So to answer your question *the cause of this particular speed is the
interaction of two intesecting fields on a particle of mass. This same
particle is the same particle that emits light which cannot exceed the
speed attained in the combined fields since there is no
applied accellerating force applied to that same particle ,only
retardation. And this is the same particle that sits on a diamagnetic
material that is removed from a heated anode without spin but with an
increase in potential energy. Without spin this same particle
deccellerates before impacting on a luminescent glass surface of a CRT.

So you admit you can't explain how to get a particle with mass to light
speed.


All that time I took to educate you was all for nothing
On top of that you accused me of breaking the laws of physics which
can only be the laws as you under stand them which is different to the
rest of the World. I also note that you have insulted another person
of the group calling him dirt.
Really you need to read a book of the World as we know it where the
magnetic fields of the Earth become inert to change and the forces of
the standard model reverse to the point of beginnings. When this
reverse begins the dead will rise and it will be heaven
as we then grow younger. Ofcourse those who decided to stay on the
side of the Red sea
will not rejoin the others that stayed on the right path which suggest
that the Middle East will be destroyed as the majority of the tribe
descendants lives there. Ofcourse if you have lived a life where you
insulted all you certainly will not be "one of the meek" that gets
blessed. Yup, read a different book next time and check out the laws
that we all have violated.

Fraud.

tom
K0TAR

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 11:34*am, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:23 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?
There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool
So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

You could go to college and learn all this but here goes.
Planck did a treatise on heat radiation where he stated that heat
radiation
is enabled by two independent functions. First was by conduction and
the second by a ray.
He went on to enlarge on the notion of a ray when is studies moved on
to radio and light radiation. He often consulted with Einstein and was
well aware of his efforts to find the weak force and where he gave up
on that and started a new science where he came up with mc sqd,. With
the abandoned search of Einstein Planck settled hard on the idea that
light was a radiated beam or wave of sorts and it was natural of him
to see radiation of heat in a similar manner i.e a wave or ray in a
similar way that light was thought of.
In fact his work moved later to the nature of light and radio
radiation where the theme of a ray or wave was retained. If Einstein
had included the wrappings of the Big Bang in his studies particles
would have retained the high ground for both him and Planck.
as well as this group together with science which has been misled to
this very day.
Thus Planck started on the wrong track with respect to heat radiation
and all of his other studies. Now he may have known what the speed of
light was but he would see it as a ray of light the same way as a ray

Bafflegab.

of heat. It was later found independently that a particle at the exit
from the combined field intersection was the speed of light which now
can be seen as the cause of light in connection with particle speed
i.e an effect and not a cause.

Give references. *This is the key to your argument, in case you can't
figure that out. *It also breaks all current laws of physics.


------------ Current laws of physics ---------------

Wowl he got something right for a change


Jaro

Standing waves
 

"Cecil Moore" ...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote
Since the forward current and reflected current are equal
in magnitude and opposite in phase at the ends, they act
like transmission line currents and the magnetic fields
cancel at the ends. They are in phase at the feedpoint -
hence the maximum radiation at that point.

It apply to 1/2WL dipole. But what radiate in 0.05WL dipole? There the
"maximum radiation " is in the transmission line (1/4WL from the end). The
feed point is also in the transmissing line.
"R. Clark wrote : "[* What is this proportional and
proportionate mean? For a dipole of
0.05 WL to a dipole of 0.5WL, the far field change for that 10:1
variation is negligible. However, for a dipole of 0.5WL to a dipole
of 1.25WL, the far field change for that 2.5:1 (a smaller proportion)
variation is very noticeable.]"


See what Richard Harrison wrote:
"At the open circuited ends of a resonant antenna there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
forward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field."

What I wrote agrees with what Richard H. wrote and vice versa.

Rather no. Richard do not write about a feed point.
S*

Standing waves
 

"christofire" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...


And what should do Richard Harrison who wrote: "At the open circuited
ends of a resonant antenna there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
dorward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field. "
S*


What Richard wrote is correct, if written in a slightly provocative manner
(deliberately?). But he wasn't stating that the electric field 'At the
open-circuited ends of a resonant antenna' passes energy into a radiated
radio wave.

Look at this: ""At the open circuited ends of a resonant antenna there is
almost double the forward voltage".
"Almost double voltage" is like the pressure in the Kundt's tube.

The energy that makes it that far (i.e. isn't radiated on account of
current in the element) is stored temporarily in an 'electrostatic' field
which is one of several 'reactive' or 'induction' field components that
surround a dipole antenna and decay with distance much faster than the
radiation field components (i.e. those that make up a radio wave). As
I've noted before, the term 'electrostatic' should not be interpreted
literally as an unchanging field - it is used to differentiate between the
reactive components and the radiation components of electric field - if
this offends you, just call it a 'reactive' component of electric field.
This stored energy is passed back into the antenna during the following RF
quarter cycle.

And guess what ... one of the reactive field components is longitudinal!

... but it isn't part of a radio wave - both parts of a radio wave, the
magnetic field and the attendant electric field, are directed transverse
to the direction of propagation, but now I'm repeating myself from a week
or more ago. Power cannot be abstracted from the reactive fields,
including the longitudinal one; they affect the imaginary part of the
terminal impedance of the antenna.

Of course, I expect you will contradict all this but I still recommend
that you read a proper account of the fields around a dipole rather than
making up your own version.

It is not my version. The electrons were discovered 100 years ago.

Since you appear to have a phobia of libraries, you could buy a
second-hand copy of Kraus, Antennas for only $15 online:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sear...nnas&x=55&y=10
and there are many, many other sources.

I am sure that there is all about electrons. It is not easy to read with
understanding. Take a glance once more and try to find compressible
electrons.

Failing that, you could always search the web for a bootleg copy, or one
of the MIT Radiation Laboratory series of books. I don't condone
bootlegging but someone in another newsgroup recently gave a link to a
collection of illegal copies and, in the hope of ending these ridiculous
arguments,

All arguments are from this Group posts.

I'll pass on what he wrote:
http://cer.ucsd.edu/~james/notes/MIT...diation%20Lab/

S*

Standing waves
 

U¿ytkownik "Richard Clark" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:53:15 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

And what should do Richard Harrison who wrote

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of your swampy
metaphor - EXCEPT to demonstrate its stagnation into a cesspool by
being completely ignored by you.

It's amusing to see you wading out there tho'. ;-)

For me it is important that at the end the voltage is doubled: "At the open
circuited ends
of a resonant antenna there is almost double the forward voltage".

I am colecting such arguments from radio people posts.
S*

Standing waves
 

"Dave"
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

In the Gas Analogy the monopole antena is exactly like the Kundt's
tube.

Heaviside did the Hydraulic Analogy. All is exactly the same like in
the fluids mechanics.
Next the electrons were discovered. Automatically Heaviside is a
history and the Gas Analogy is in power.

But you, radio people, are very close to waves and should be easy for
you to work out the answer for the Question:
Which Analogy is right?

neither analogy is 'right'. they are useful in limited circumstances to
demonstrate some basic pressure wave physics to young students. but
neither one properly reproduces electromagnetic waves.

"electromagnetic waves" are paper waves. Radio waves are real waves. Now
we must not know what the waves are like. Now we should estabilish from
which part of the radiator radiate the radio waves.
Do you agree with Richard Harisson:
"At the open circuited ends of a resonant antenna there is almost double
the forward voltage but zero total current due to cancellation of the
dorward and reflected currents at the open circuit. At the open circuit
in the wire, all the energy in the wave is transferred to the electric
field."
S*


we know what they are like, you just have to understand the mathematics.

I understand. Without that it was be impossible to know that Maxwell
proposed the displacement current to save the incompressible electric fluid.
In Maxwell times AC current was known. To pass the incompressible fluid
through a capacitor the displacement current is necessary. I prefere the
compressible electrons. They compress in the plates and nothing flow between
them. The polarization is not the macro flow.

and yes, richard's statements are true, but a bit too restrictive, it
doesn't HAVE to be resonant. Voltage doubles and current=0 at the end of
any wire fed with a time varying current, it doesn't even have to be a
sine wave... note the effect of sending square waves from a time domain
reflectometer down an open circuited wire.

Yes. But antennas are in resonance.
S*

Standing waves
 

"Richard Fry" wrote
...
On Sep 21, 12:23 pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
You only do not realize that EM waves can start from the ELECRIC field.
The
electric field is radiated from the ends where is high voltage and no
current.

No, Szczepan, it is you that does not realize that voltage, alone,
cannot produce an

Let us assume that electromagnetic field is a proposition by Maxwell.
The electric field is more realistic.

Only the change in current and charge flowing along a conductor, over
time, produces far-field EM radiation. That radiation includes both
the magnetic and electric fields, at right angles to each other and to
the direction of travel.

It is untrue that one part of a conductor or antenna radiates the
magnetic field, and another part radiates the electric field, no
matter the claims of the proponents of the E-H antenna (which have not
been demonstrated).

But it is experimentally proved. Stationary charge - electric field, Moving
charge - magnetic field.
Probably the both fields are the same. Only instruments are different.

The fact that the ends of a dipole, and the top of a monopole have
very little net current flowing means that those locations cannot
contribute very much to the EM radiation from those antennas.

But there are the doubled voltage. Very strong pulses must appear in space.

You really should form your opinions from research in modern textbooks
on antennas, rather than using Wikipedia and inapplicable analogies to
sound waves. At a minimum you could recognize the quotes from them on
this subject that already have been posted here.

Up to now the acoustic analogy is fully applicable.
S*

RF

Standing waves
 

"Art Unwin" wrote
...
On Sep 21, 12:23 pm, Szczepan Białek wrote:
 "tom"
news:4ab41e80$0$42842$8046368 ...

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

God forbid that you should actually do some research! Â What a terrible
thought!

All necessary resarch are done by radio people. You all know how antennas
work. Monopole and dipole means the electric pole because no magnetic
poles.
You only do not realize that EM waves can start from the ELECRIC field.
The
electric field is radiated from the ends where is high voltage and no
current.
S*

S*
These guys are not helping you! What they are doing is using you for
cannon fodder.

Day after day they state the new for me aguments that the acoustic analogy
is the winner.


Try looking at things my way. You know that when a time varying
current is applied to a radiator that it also supports a reacting
current with spin, known as as an Eddy current
You also know that the current applied produces a electrical field and
a magnetic field that interchange energy between each other in the
form of a tank circuit.

You go into details. Now is not time for that. Now we should work out the
consensus on which part of the radiator radiate the radio waves.

Now look at the sequence of actions.We do know that the Eddy current
produces a lifting force and a spin force and we also know that there
is a electro static field surrounding the radiator. First we must
recognise that particles encapsulate the whole radiator but can be
individually lifted from the radiator with spin applied a short
distance. At this point it enters the electrostatic field around the
radiator where at the same time the generated magnetic field is
intersecting the electrostatic field. The moment that the lifted
particle enters the electro static field mix it is subjected to a
accelarating force exactly the same way as a electron in a CRT is
impacted upon. If you refer to the actions within a electron tube you
will note that the electrostatic field offsets the direction of the
accellerated particle into an exiting parabolic direction. The
combined fields will only accelerate the particle while it is within
the electrostatic field proper, after which it has a straight line
projection with spin. The time that it is within the electrostatic
field is the total accelerating time ie Newtons law 1/2 ft sqd.
The acceleration imparted to the particle happens to be the speed of
light which implies that this particle is able to emit light. If you
have difficulty then read up on the CRT.
As a point of interest the Eddy current itself must be balanced by an
equal and opposite force per Newton and if we look at it in boundary
terms we see that the opposing force is the combination of Gravity and
the rotation of the Earth. What this shows is that the particle has
spin and accelleration where the vector associated with Gravity is now
neutralized such that it retains its straight line action with spin
as it traverses the boundaries of the Earth Another thing of
importance is that Newtons laws are based on the condition of mass
where the particle becomes an excellent fit as opposed to a field or a
wave.
Back to the radiator itself. If it is a full wave length then it is a
closed circuit of the tank circuit form. If a radiator is less than a
wave length then yes, charges will form at the end of a radiator but
is hampered from further movement by the opposing impedance of the
environment. The charges will still leak but with out a spinning
action it will remain in the near field. Ofcourse changing the
environment will give an instantaneus charge in a spark form because
as an open circuit it always searches for the closed circuit function.

It will not be easy to work out here all details.
S*


Regards
Art

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 3:13*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

Yes. But antennas are in resonance.

That is rarely true.

A naturally resonant antenna has zero reactance at its feedpoint. But
that is not a requirement for it to produce EM radiation efficiently
from all of the r-f current flowing on it.

The monopoles used by MW broadcast stations vary from 60 to 225
electrical degrees in height. Only a few of those heights are
naturally resonant.

Yet they all radiate nearly 100% of the applied power, because any
antenna reactance is offset by an impedance matching network at the
feedpoint.

RF

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
For me it is important that at the end the voltage is doubled: "At the
open circuited ends
of a resonant antenna there is almost double the forward voltage".

The same thing happens with an open-circuit stub yet it
radiates a negligible amount. The only place where an
antenna radiates more than a negligible amount is where
the forward and reverse currents are unbalanced.

At the ends of a 1/2WL dipole, the forward and reverse
currents are perfectly balanced, i.e. they are 100%
transmission line currents which are known not to
radiate.

At the 1/2WL dipole feedpoint, the forward and reverse
currents are most unbalanced, i.e. since they are in
phase at the feedpoint, they can be considered to be
100% antenna currents.

This is just one more example of the illogic of
forcing forward and reflected waves into a mashed
potatoes theory of energy. The underlying laws of
physics are lost in the process.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 3:34*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

Up to now the acoustic analogy is fully applicable.

Not if one understands the physics of radiation.

But it is experimentally proved. Stationary charge - electric field,
Moving charge - magnetic field.

Untrue, and I challenge you to cite any credible experimental data
that you think proves your belief.

Far-field EM radiation is produced only by the current flow on the
antenna, and that radiation contains BOTH the electric and the
magnetic fields.

You may have missed the accurate description posted by Chris, and
pasted below.

"The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from
the
applied potential difference at its terminals. The radiated fields
result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect
on the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes
through it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together,
of
course, represent the radiated power. The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device
trying to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is
composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. The electrostatic field developed between
the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a
cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the
charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it
doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave."

RF

Standing waves
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 21, 7:33 pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on,
by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with
a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on
the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through
it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying
to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is
composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the
charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. Krauss, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid
name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write
especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris

No it does not appear in Kraus book.

* That is incorrect, and I expect you know that to be the case. All of what
I wrote above can be traced to sources such as Kraus, Jordan and Balmain,
and Jasik; books you may never have tried to read and understand (on the
basis of your comment).


He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in trems of normal physics and cite a reference.


To do that you must think in terms of
wavelength. After all with respect to science all revolve around
boundary laws of the Universe and you blindly ignore that fact.

* How is there a boundary to the universe? It is unbounded - the universe
is known to be expanding into empty space.


Now back to radiation which applies spin to a p.

* No it doesn't - cite a reference.


Nowarticle where as
with a crt no spin is applied as it is heat that separates the resting
particle

* ... separates it from what?


Now earlier you refered to a electrostatic field that
according to what you stated did not have a border and surely you know
that just can't be unless it is in equilibrium which requires a closed
circuit.

* Fields in unbounded space tend to be unbounded. The fields around a
dipole are bounded by the surface of the dipole, which is the boundary
condition used by NEC, and usually in practice by the earth.


For this to come to fruition you go back to the boundary laws where
the arbitrary border is one that is closed i.e. in equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in terms of normal physics and cite a reference.


Now
cast your mind back to the Gauss extension where radiators and
particles lie in a closed static field. Now you should see that
equilibrium must reign for a closed static field. Now you blithely
mentioned an electrostatic field with nary a mention as to how it is
formed and how it fits into the whole picture.

* Recent discussion has been about the electric field produced by the
voltage that appears between the ends of a dipole - that's what I was
writing about, and so were you. How can you state 'with nary a mention as
to how it is formed'?


Why? Because the books do not provide an unbroken trail that fully
describes radiation
( books admit that) as I have done where everything dove tails into
the existing laws of the Universe.

* Kraus provides a trail that's as unbroken as can be comprehended by most
engineers. Physicists may wish to take it further but there's no evidence
of physicists in this newsgroup.


And then I gave you a bonus with
respect to the weak field that Einstein searched for in vain. Einstein
looked at the package presented by the Big Bag but omitted to keep
that which it was wrapped into.

* Is the universe enclosed in a Big Bag?


That was the arbitrary boundary around
which were forces or vectors that were equal and opposite when a
smallest of smallest of particles edged out towards the border. Yes it
was of a weak force but for all of that it broke the equilibrium
boundary as the forces at that point was not now equal. The breakage
was one where the opposing forces were offset to each other thus
providing a torque force that provided spin. Now we come to our own
Earth encased in a arbitrary border and outside the border we have the
same conditions of equilibrium that must equal the forces of the Big
Bang which means the outside has two vectors, gravity vector which is
straight and a vector denoting spin i.e. rotation of the Earth. On the
other side of the border you again have two vectors a straight vector
and that curly one you don't like me to call eddy current.

* Call it what you wish. Capitalising the word within a sentence, as you
did before, is usually reserved for phenomena named after the people who
discovered them - but that's an engineer thing.


Yup. Everything falls together nicely thank you, when you study
radiation from first principles instead of binding yourself to books
that readily admit to not understanding the radiation process.

* If you believe so fervently in your own version of all this then why don't
you submit it to peer review at sci.physics or sci.physics.research? It's
rather unfair to expose this only to an amateur radio newsgroup when what
you are doing is apparently re-writing physics in such a major way. Those
newsgroups would be more appropriate, considering the depth to which you are
going (i.e. well beyond amateur radio) - wouldn't you agree.


Now
this is not being arrogant when one has applied all principles

* My dictionary defines 'arrogant' as: 'having or showing an exaggerated
opinion of one's own importance , merit, ability, etc.' from the Latin
'arrogare': 'to claim as one's own'. Your re-writing of physics conforms to
this definition precisely.


but I
do think it is arrogant of you and others to asasinate the character
of "S" purely because of his english and spelling and not to help one
that wants to learn.

* He is showing no inclination of wanting to learn - he asks a question, and
then when answered responds with non-physical contradiction. His treatement
here is a direct consequence of that behaviour, like yours.


Just think about it all. I have shown how a particle moves in space in
a straight line trajectory such that the particle maintains a straight
line without the parabolic force of gravity driving it down to the
Earth. Go back to your books and show just how the electrostatic field
came about and what was the borders that it was contained in
Art
via applied spin and where gravity


* As I say, you should present your theory to sci.physics and
sci.physics.research if you have any interest in checking whether it is
correct, and not limit its exposure to this group. Do let us know when you
have posted there.

Chris

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Now we should work out
the consensus on which part of the radiator radiate the radio waves.

Here's what you are missing: RF is AC. At some point
in the radiation cycle, the instantaneous radiation has
to be zero at the zero-crossing time. That is when the
magnetic field energy is essentially zero and close to
100% of the energy is contained in the electric fields
at the ends of the dipole.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a radiation
peak at a net current maximum time and also have a radiation
peak at a net voltage maximum time since they are ~90 degrees
out of phase. If what you are saying were really happening,
an antenna would radiate two times the applied frequency,
but it obviously doesn't.

Or did you not realize that when the electric field is
at its maximum amplitude, the current is close to zero-
crossing all up and down the standing wave antenna? The
phase of the feedpoint current is within a couple of
degrees of the phase of the current all up and down
the antenna.

That's why the current on a standing wave antenna cannot
be used to measure the delay through a wire or a loading
coil. All such "measurements" are bogus.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 2:21*am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

It apply to 1/2WL dipole. But what radiate in 0.05WL dipole? There the
"maximum radiation " is in the transmission line (1/4WL from the end).
The feed point is also in the transmissing line.

There is no radiation from a transmission line as long as the currents
in it are balanced. Attaching a transmission line to a 0.05WL center-
fed dipole does not change that balance.

The feedpoint of such a short dipole has very high capacitive
reactance, so getting much current to flow into it would be difficult
without proper impedance matching to the transmission line.

But whatever the impedance match, all of the radiation occurs from the
0.05WL dipole itself, and maximum radiation is generated at the
feedpoint, where the r-f current is greatest.

RF

Standing waves
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:40:30 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of your swampy
metaphor - EXCEPT to demonstrate its stagnation into a cesspool by
being completely ignored by you.

It's amusing to see you wading out there tho'. ;-)

For me it is important that at the end the voltage is doubled

Yes, we can all tell what is important to you. Unfortunately it does
not equate with what is important for you. No doubt that distinction
is lost in translation and you will continue to fumble on.

I'm glad to see you shed that nonsense about hydraulics. As you
understood that topic far less than RF (which is in itself on very
shaky ground), it wouldn't have done to poison the well.

This poor understanding is quite obvious by your last comment above.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:51:44 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

Chris

Could you turn your newsreader's quoting mechanism back on? It is
very confusing to have to fumble with Art's babbling interleaved with
your "special" editorial marks.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:48:43 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote with abysmal quoting:

It will not be easy to work out here all details.
S*


Regards
Art

You guys need to get a room.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing waves
 

"Richard Fry" wrote
...
On Sep 22, 2:21 am, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

It apply to 1/2WL dipole. But what radiate in 0.05WL dipole? There the
"maximum radiation " is in the transmission line (1/4WL from the end).
The feed point is also in the transmissing line.

There is no radiation from a transmission line as long as the currents
in it are balanced. Attaching a transmission line to a 0.05WL center-
fed dipole does not change that balance.

The feedpoint of such a short dipole has very high capacitive
reactance, so getting much current to flow into it would be difficult
without proper impedance matching to the transmission line.

The feed point is the part of the transmissing line and not radiate.

But whatever the impedance match, all of the radiation occurs from the
0.05WL dipole itself, and maximum radiation is generated at the
feedpoint, where the r-f current is greatest.

See above.

Dipole 0.05 is probably the straight. How long are the folded dipoles and
the loop antennas? Are there the short version?
S*

Standing waves
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Now we should work out the consensus on which part of the radiator
radiate the radio waves.

Here's what you are missing: RF is AC. At some point
in the radiation cycle, the instantaneous radiation has
to be zero at the zero-crossing time. That is when the
magnetic field energy is essentially zero and close to
100% of the energy is contained in the electric fields
at the ends of the dipole.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a radiation
peak at a net current maximum time and also have a radiation
peak at a net voltage maximum time since they are ~90 degrees
out of phase. If what you are saying were really happening,
an antenna would radiate two times the applied frequency,
but it obviously doesn't.

We do not have the both. But we have the Luxembourg effect. Each dipole
antena radiate two times the applied frequency, The pulses from the ends
are 180 degrees apart.

Or did you not realize that when the electric field is
at its maximum amplitude, the current is close to zero-
crossing all up and down the standing wave antenna?
phase of the feedpoint current is within a couple of
degrees of the phase of the current all up and down
the antenna.

That's why the current on a standing wave antenna cannot
be used to measure the delay through a wire or a loading
coil. All such "measurements" are bogus.

S*

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

But what radiate in 0.05WL dipole? There the
"maximum radiation" is in the transmission line (1/4WL from the end).
The feed point is also in the transmissing line.

Then later the same day he wrote:

The feed point is the part of the transmissing line and not radiate.

Pick one of the above comments, only, Szczepan.

The feed points are terminals of the antenna. On center-fed dipoles
that are 1/2WL or less in length, antenna current is highest at those
terminals.

How long are the folded dipoles and the
loop antennas? Are there the short version?

They can be any length, but some lengths have better input
characteristics and/or more useful radiation patterns than others.

RF

Standing waves
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Each dipole
antenna radiate two times the applied frequency, ...

Sorry, 2*sin(2wt) sin(wt)

Here's the question: Is the radiated RF wave in phase
with the standing wave current or in phase with the
standing wave voltage? The radiated RF wave cannot be
in phase with both since they are 90 degrees out of
phase on the standing wave antenna.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 6:51*am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 7:33 pm, "christofire" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on,
by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with
a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on
the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through
it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying
to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is
composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the
charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. Krauss, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid
name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write
especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris

No it does not appear in Kraus book.

* That is incorrect, and I expect you know that to be the case. *All of what
I wrote above can be traced to sources such as Kraus, Jordan and Balmain,
and Jasik; books you may never have tried to read and understand (on the
basis of your comment).

*He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in trems of normal physics and cite a reference.
Surprised you dont know that!
Easily done. Boundary laws are based on Newtons laws where every
action has an equal and opposite reaction. So a subject under
discussion is placed inside an arbitrary border
where the forces of the contents must be equal to the sum of the
forces outside the boundary. Where does Krauss deviate from from
Maxwells laws? well for one thing his radiator differed from a full
WL or period so immediately he has strayed. Another thing is by
straying from a full WL he was unable to contain the electrostatic
field within a border
such as a quad. And it goes on especially with regards to his windings
pitch theory.
Thus the contents of the arbitrary boundary is now in a state of
equilibrium. this is true whether a unit of time has been added or not
to the equation.





*To do that you must think in terms of
wavelength. After all with respect to science all revolve around
boundary laws of the Universe and you blindly ignore that fact.

* How is there a boundary to the universe? *It is unbounded - the universe
is known to be expanding into empty space.

Hogwash. Nobody knows the extent of the Universe boundary. Every day
discoveries are made beyond our Universe so we are nowhere near the
point we can ascertain what forces
are required to contain a boundary.
Again I am surprised you didn't know that!


Now back to radiation which applies spin to a p.

* No it doesn't - cite a reference.

Well look at how salvage yards sort out metals into different
enclosures.
They apply a displacement current to a conveyor where each piece of
metal is elevated with spin such that it lands in the appropriate
enclosure which is dependent on the resistivity of the metal elevated.
This method of elevating scrap for recovery has been used for years
and it is the same action that is applied to particles for radiation.
Why would you need a citation for a practice that is well known and in
use? On top of that a citation is only an instrument to poin out who
and where the statement was made. This has its use for those who
easily believe what they see in print and thus save them from effort.



*Nowarticle where as
with a crt no spin is applied as it is heat that separates the resting
particle

* ... separates it from what?

Now you are being silly. first the particle was resting. Then heat was
applied to its butt.
Now think about it. What fields are in place to take control of the
free particle that now has a increase in its potential energy?


*Now earlier you refered to a electrostatic field that
according to what you stated did not have a border and surely you know
that just can't be unless it is in equilibrium which requires a closed
circuit.

* Fields in unbounded space tend to be unbounded. *The fields around a
dipole are bounded by the surface of the dipole, which is the boundary
condition used by NEC, and usually in practice by the earth.

Tend, tend. You mean you don't know? NEC is per the laws of Maxwell.
Equilibrium is a must as is the encirclement of a electrostatic field
just like a quad or loop antenna. Since the programmer did not follow
Maxwell in its entirety and frankly did many modifications such that
it would solve planar radiators, who knows what license the
programmers took to get the job done where it could foolmost of the
people most of the time?




For this to come to fruition you go back to the boundary laws where
the arbitrary border is one that is closed i.e. in equilibrium.

* Define 'equilibrium' in terms of normal physics and cite a reference.
Hmm I thought I had done that before!



*Now
cast your mind back to the Gauss extension where radiators and
particles lie in a closed static field. Now you should see that
equilibrium must reign for a closed static field. Now you blithely
mentioned an electrostatic field with nary a mention as to how it is
formed and how it fits into the whole picture.

* Recent discussion has been about the electric field produced by the
voltage that appears between the ends of a dipole - that's what I was
writing about, and so were you. *How can you state 'with nary a mention as
to how it is formed'?

I have concentrated on radiator that were in equilibrium and of a
closed circuit called a tank circuit
.. You are mixing things up. I explained for somebody else what a
charge does for a radiator that is NOT in equilibrium because others
were unable to describe it adequately.


Why? Because the books do not provide an unbroken trail that fully
describes radiation
( books admit that) as I have done where everything dove tails into
the existing laws of the Universe.



* Kraus provides a trail that's as unbroken as can be comprehended by most
engineers. *Physicists may wish to take it further but there's no evidence
of physicists in this newsgroup.

No Krauss did no such thing. He expanded a yagi style radiator where
the elements ere made of loops. All he did was to connect them into a
continuous conductor. When experimenting with this he saw evidence
that field did not follow the axis of the windings
( rotation of the earth again) so he adjusted the pitch of the
windings to obtain a satisfactory pattern. He did not improve on the
existing knowledge of radiators as his radiators were not in
equilibrium and thus strayed from Maxwell.


*And then I gave you a bonus with
respect to the weak field that Einstein searched for in vain. Einstein
looked at the package presented by the Big Bag but omitted to keep
that which it was wrapped into.

* Is the universe enclosed in a Big Bag?

If you wish to put it into a three dimensional border be my guest. It
would be interesting to know what your starting point is bearing in
mind your position of a huge surrounding void.


*That was the arbitrary boundary around
which were forces or vectors that were equal and opposite when a
smallest of smallest of particles edged out towards the border. Yes it
was of a weak force but for all of that it broke the equilibrium
boundary as the forces at that point was not now equal. The breakage
was one where the opposing forces were offset to each other thus
providing a torque force that provided spin. Now we come to our own
Earth encased in a arbitrary border and outside the border we have the
same conditions of equilibrium that must equal the forces of the Big
Bang which means the outside has two vectors, gravity vector which is
straight and a vector denoting spin i.e. rotation of the Earth. On the
other side of the border you again have two vectors *a straight vector
and that curly one you don't like me to call eddy current.

* Call it what you wish. *Capitalising the word within a sentence, as you
did before, is usually reserved for phenomena named after the people who
discovered them - but that's an engineer thing.

Big deal


Yup. Everything falls together nicely thank you, when you study
radiation from first principles instead of binding yourself to books
that readily admit to not understanding the radiation process.

* If you believe so fervently in your own version of all this then why don't
you submit it to peer review at sci.physics or sci.physics.research? *It's
rather unfair to expose this only to an amateur radio newsgroup when what
you are doing is apparently re-writing physics in such a major way. *Those
newsgroups would be more appropriate, considering the depth to which you are
going (i.e. well beyond amateur radio) - wouldn't you agree.

Not really, espeilly if the groups has the same stature as this one.


*Now

this is not being arrogant when one has applied all principles

* My dictionary defines 'arrogant' as: 'having or showing an exaggerated
opinion of one's own importance , merit, ability, etc.' from the Latin
'arrogare': 'to claim as one's own'. *Your re-writing of physics conforms to
this definition precisely.

So it is arrogant to do things for your self from first principles to
confirm whether printed matter is correct or not? Why would anybody
broaden the outlook of others work without determining that its
foundations was of rock or sand? Trust but verify seems very apt here.



*but I
do think it is arrogant of you and others to asasinate the character
of "S" purely because of his english and spelling and not to help one
that wants to learn.

* He is showing no inclination of wanting to learn - he asks a question, and
then when answered responds with non-physical contradiction. *His treatement
here is a direct consequence of that behaviour, like yours.

Could be but he is not alone. He is surrounded by pseudo experts in
all fields who can prove nothing for themselves and relying on the
printed matter of others. Might just as well close the doors of a
library for a year to determine which book came out on top. Why on
earth would somebody turn him away from hydrolics when it like
electric current has laminar flow



Just think about it all. I have shown how a particle moves in space in
a straight line trajectory such that the particle maintains a straight
line without the parabolic force of gravity driving it down to the
Earth. Go back to your books and show just how the electrostatic field
came about and what was the borders that it was contained in
Art
via applied spin and where gravity

* As I say, you should present your theory to sci.physics and
sci.physics.research if you have any interest in checking whether it is
correct, and not limit its exposure to this group. *Do let us know when you
have posted there.

No, that is not the choice I have made. I decided to merge a paper
aproach with that of a patent request . You have read one patent
request and you have to wait for the PTO to print out the concluding
application. I am sharing it with industry and not the boneheads
who bunch themselves into secret rooms away from those outside who
cannot possibly provide anything of interest. They have the common
interest that if it doesn't come from them..........!!!!!! Pretty much
the same as this group. We shall see
Art




Chris

Standing waves
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:48:43 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote with abysmal quoting:

It will not be easy to work out here all details.
S*


Regards
Art

You guys need to get a room.

I think that might already be the case.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 3:29*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:48:43 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote with abysmal quoting:

It will not be easy to work out here all details.
S*

Regards
Art

You guys need to get a room.

I think that might already be the case.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike I am certainly not wired the same as Clark as I'm married and
have great grand children. It maybe normal for him to go into a room
with a man but why would he paint such a picture of "S" to infer that
he is as sick as him? I like women like any other real man
and certainly do not condone the practices that Clark and possibly you
would aproove of
with respect to males or airport bathroom manners

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 1:44*pm, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
If what you are saying were really happening,
an antenna would radiate two times the applied frequency,
but it obviously doesn't.

We do not have the both. But we have the Luxembourg effect. Each dipole
antena *radiate two times the applied frequency, The pulses from the ends
are 180 degrees apart.

So then, Szczepan, should transmissions using such antennas, and
expecting to be received on frequency "X" transmit on frequency "X" /
2 ? Note that such is not the reality.

Some low-level radiation from the transmit antenna may exist at twice
the carrier frequency, but in almost all cases it arises from
insufficient suppression of the 2nd harmonic of, and in the
transmitter.

And in NO case is it produced as you describe above.

RF

Standing waves
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:24:17 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:


Well look at how salvage yards sort out metals into different
enclosures.
They apply a displacement current to a conveyor where each piece of
metal is elevated with spin such that it lands in the appropriate
enclosure which is dependent on the resistivity of the metal elevated.
This isn't exactly how such systems work. Abstractly the system is a
metal detector and a sorting table hanging off a CAN. A controller at
the other end of the CAN 'reads' the discriminator and 'writes' to the
sorter. The writes open and close ejector nozzles. These are the magic
devices that cause the material to 'elevate with spin'.

This method of elevating scrap for recovery has been used for years
and it is the same action that is applied to particles for radiation.
Why would you need a citation for a practice that is well known and in
use?
Because you might be wishing your agenda into how you propose things
work. Who'da thunk that!

Standing waves
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:51:44 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

Chris

Could you turn your newsreader's quoting mechanism back on? It is
very confusing to have to fumble with Art's babbling interleaved with
your "special" editorial marks.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Richard,

It's not something I have control over using Outlook Express, and it has
been commented upon by others before. Whether OE maintains the ''s before
lines of quoted text seems to depend on something in the text I'm quoting.
I gather it is a known issue, and it's the reason why I sometimes use a '*'
before the first line of new paragraphs of my response. I have been told I
should ditch OE but I don't want to use webmail; I could use Agent but I
haven't so far.

Chris

Standing waves
 

christofire wrote:

Richard,

It's not something I have control over using Outlook Express, and it has
been commented upon by others before. Whether OE maintains the ''s before
lines of quoted text seems to depend on something in the text I'm quoting.
I gather it is a known issue, and it's the reason why I sometimes use a '*'
before the first line of new paragraphs of my response. I have been told I
should ditch OE but I don't want to use webmail; I could use Agent but I
haven't so far.

Chris

I highly recommend Mozilla Thunderbird.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Standing waves
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 6:51 am, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

* As I say, you should present your theory to sci.physics and
sci.physics.research if you have any interest in checking whether it is
correct, and not limit its exposure to this group. Do let us know when you
have posted there.

No, that is not the choice I have made. I decided to merge a paper
aproach with that of a patent request . You have read one patent
request and you have to wait for the PTO to print out the concluding
application. I am sharing it with industry and not the boneheads
who bunch themselves into secret rooms away from those outside who
cannot possibly provide anything of interest. They have the common
interest that if it doesn't come from them..........!!!!!! Pretty much
the same as this group. We shall see
Art


* OK, at an appropriate juncture I'll invite some of them to come over and
take a look at what you write here (crossposting would probably be frowned
upon). It might be enlightening to receive the views of some physicists.

Chris

Standing waves
 

On Sep 22, 6:28*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 6:51 am, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

* As I say, you should present your theory to sci.physics and
sci.physics.research if you have any interest in checking whether it is
correct, and not limit its exposure to this group. Do let us know when you
have posted there.

No, that is not the choice I have made. I *decided to merge a paper
aproach with that of a patent request . You have read one patent
request and you have to wait for the PTO to print out the concluding
application. I am sharing it with industry and not the boneheads
who bunch themselves into secret rooms away from those outside who
cannot possibly provide anything of interest. They have the common
interest that if it doesn't come from them..........!!!!!! Pretty much
the same as this group. We shall see
Art

* OK, at an appropriate juncture I'll invite some of them to come over and
take a look at what you write here (crossposting would probably be frowned
upon). *It might be enlightening to receive the views of some physicists.

Chris

If you know of any I would welcome their views. There are many retired
educated people in this world today that turn to that which they had
an interest with when young. Now it is difficult to get up to speed in
different sciences because various journals get the rights of various
papers from Universities e.t.c which are then denied to libraries and
the public.
This is a resource the country should assist because its costs are low
and where all have
large experience obtained thru their working years. Imagine
professionals who when retired
have twenty or more years of experience be allowed to follow and
contribute in areas where an interest has laid dormant for so long.
Today's efforts are applied to computers where data comes out in
bundles which have to be sorted to determine if anything good is being
offered by using a mish mash of arithmetic formulae that are merged
with similar formulae from different functions. Sad, sad, sad.

Standing waves
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
christofire wrote:

Richard,

It's not something I have control over using Outlook Express, and it
has been commented upon by others before. Whether OE maintains the
''s before lines of quoted text seems to depend on something in the
text I'm quoting. I gather it is a known issue, and it's the reason
why I sometimes use a '*' before the first line of new paragraphs of
my response. I have been told I should ditch OE but I don't want to
use webmail; I could use Agent but I haven't so far.

Chris

I highly recommend Mozilla Thunderbird.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I second that recommendation.

tom
K0TAR