Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Dec 9, 12:30*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Dave" ...
On Dec 8, 8:51 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



"JIMMIE"
...
On Dec 7, 3:03 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Lets make sure I follow, You are saying that radio communication
occurs because and antenna emits statically charged particle that then
imparts their charge to the receiving antenna when they strike the
antenna. Is this what you are saying.

Yes. But in form of longitudinal waves. Electrons go out and come back
from
the end of radiator. For this reason he can wrote: "the idea of point
radiation which leads to efficient small volume antennas.
And following these edicts I have been able to make radiators of a
smnaller volume that is known in the present state of the art."

When electrons oscillate in a transmitter the voltage at the end of a
radiator is doubled and the strong Gauss electric field is produced. Such
waves are longitudinal.

Exactly which particles are you saying are responsible for this?.

Here are many hypothesis. One of them is the Diracs electron see. So the
electrons in the conductor kick the electrons in the space. But it is not
important. Radio people should know which part of the radiator radiate and
what the waves a normal pressure waves or artifical TEM waves.
S*
so how do antennas encased in insulators work at all?

For this Maxwell invented the displacement current. It is oscillating
current in insulators. In insulators are charges which can not flow bat only
can oscillate. They can oscillate to and fro and/or rotate about some angle.
....
Hmmm. Are you suggesting that there is no displacement current in a
capacitance that uses a vacuum for dielectric?

Sigh. I'm glad I didn't have to learn E&M from reading r.r.a.a.

Cheers,
Tom

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

Hmmm. Are you suggesting that there is no displacement current in a
capacitance that uses a vacuum for dielectric?

Sigh. I'm glad I didn't have to learn E&M from reading r.r.a.a.

And from people who cannot begin to understand even the most
elementary math.

Frank (VE6CB)

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

"Dave" wrote
...
On Dec 9, 8:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Dave"
...
On Dec 8, 8:51 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"JIMMIE"
...
On Dec 7, 3:03 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Lets make sure I follow, You are saying that radio communication
occurs because and antenna emits statically charged particle that
then
imparts their charge to the receiving antenna when they strike the
antenna. Is this what you are saying.

Yes. But in form of longitudinal waves. Electrons go out and come back
from
the end of radiator. For this reason he can wrote: "the idea of point
radiation which leads to efficient small volume antennas.
And following these edicts I have been able to make radiators of a
smnaller volume that is known in the present state of the art."

When electrons oscillate in a transmitter the voltage at the end of a
radiator is doubled and the strong Gauss electric field is produced.
Such
waves are longitudinal.

Exactly which particles are you saying are responsible for this?.

Here are many hypothesis. One of them is the Diracs electron see. So
the
electrons in the conductor kick the electrons in the space. But it is
not
important. Radio people should know which part of the radiator radiate
and
what the waves a normal pressure waves or artifical TEM waves.
S*
so how do antennas encased in insulators work at all?

For this Maxwell invented the displacement current. It is oscillating
current in insulators. In insulators are charges which can not flow bat
only
can oscillate. They can oscillate to and fro and/or rotate about some
angle.

For the transverse wave they rotate.
For longitudinal to and fro.

But such seperate waves are only in the math. Real waves have always the
two
components. Always dominate the longitudinal.
S*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

but you said that "conductor kick the electrons in the space", now its
not electrons? So which is it? do you believe in art and his
particles that get kicked off the diamagnetic elements, or in the
maxwell displacement current that requires no particles?

In Maxwell times no electrons but only electricity. DC current flows only in
the closed circuit. AC current oscillate to and fro in the open circuit
because in insulator are also charges (electricity). The same electricity
was in the space. Maxwell did the description of such aether. Now no aether
but the Maxwell's math was modiffed by Heaviside.

maxwell's math only describes the real waves and they are always
transverse.

Maxwell proposed the aether model with the transverse waves. There were the
vortex see and the idle gear.

the only fictional mathematical waves are standing
waves... they aren't real waves, just figments of someone's bad math
meant to confuse poor amateurs.

When a wave reflects the amplitude is doubling. This doubling is real in the
acustics and in antennas.
The doubling is possible only in the compressible medium (air or electron
gas). The elecreicity in Maxwell's model and in the Heaviside math is
incompressible.
S*

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

"K7ITM" wrote
...
On Dec 9, 12:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Dave"
...
On Dec 8, 8:51 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



"JIMMIE"
...
On Dec 7, 3:03 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Lets make sure I follow, You are saying that radio communication
occurs because and antenna emits statically charged particle that
then
imparts their charge to the receiving antenna when they strike the
antenna. Is this what you are saying.

Yes. But in form of longitudinal waves. Electrons go out and come back
from
the end of radiator. For this reason he can wrote: "the idea of point
radiation which leads to efficient small volume antennas.
And following these edicts I have been able to make radiators of a
smnaller volume that is known in the present state of the art."

When electrons oscillate in a transmitter the voltage at the end of a
radiator is doubled and the strong Gauss electric field is produced.
Such
waves are longitudinal.

Exactly which particles are you saying are responsible for this?.

Here are many hypothesis. One of them is the Diracs electron see. So
the
electrons in the conductor kick the electrons in the space. But it is
not
important. Radio people should know which part of the radiator radiate
and
what the waves a normal pressure waves or artifical TEM waves.
S*
so how do antennas encased in insulators work at all?

For this Maxwell invented the displacement current. It is oscillating
current in insulators. In insulators are charges which can not flow bat
only
can oscillate. They can oscillate to and fro and/or rotate about some
angle.
....
Hmmm. Are you suggesting that there is no displacement current in a
capacitance that uses a vacuum for dielectric?

Yes. But it is not suggestion. The displacement current is necessary for the
incompressible electricity.
Now we know that the voltage is doubled ( Marx high voltage generator) and
that means that the electron gas is compressible.
The dielectric between capacitor plates undergos the electrostriction.

Sigh. I'm glad I didn't have to learn E&M from reading r.r.a.a.

But it is interesting to look at Maxwell's drawings to his model of the
vortex see with the idle gear.
S*


Cheers,
Tom

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Dec 10, 3:24*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 9, 7:43*pm, Dave wrote:



On Dec 9, 8:30*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

*"Dave" ...
On Dec 8, 8:51 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"JIMMIE"
...
On Dec 7, 3:03 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Lets make sure I follow, You are saying that radio communication
occurs because and antenna emits statically charged particle that then
imparts their charge to the receiving antenna when they strike the
antenna. Is this what you are saying.

Yes. But in form of longitudinal waves. Electrons go out and come back
from
the end of radiator. For this reason he can wrote: "the idea of point
radiation which leads to efficient small volume antennas.
And following these edicts I have been able to make radiators of a
smnaller volume that is known in the present state of the art."

When electrons oscillate in a transmitter the voltage at the end of a
radiator is doubled and the strong Gauss electric field is produced.. Such
waves are longitudinal.

Exactly which particles are you saying are responsible for this?.

Here are many hypothesis. One of them is the Diracs electron see. So the
electrons in the conductor kick the electrons in the space. But it is not
important. Radio people should know which part of the radiator radiate and
what the waves a normal pressure waves or artifical TEM waves.
S*
so how do antennas encased in insulators work at all?

For this Maxwell invented the displacement current. It is oscillating
current in insulators. In insulators are charges which can not flow bat only
can oscillate. They can oscillate to and fro and/or rotate about some angle.

For the transverse wave they rotate.
For longitudinal to and fro.

But such seperate waves are only in the math. Real waves have always the two
components. Always dominate the longitudinal.
S*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

but you said that "conductor kick the electrons in the space", now its
not electrons? *So which is it? *do you believe in art and his
particles that get kicked off the diamagnetic elements, or in the
maxwell displacement current that requires no particles?

maxwell's math only describes the real waves and they are always
transverse. the only fictional mathematical waves are standing
waves... they aren't real waves, just figments of someone's bad math
meant to confuse poor amateurs.

Hold it now! The present aproach involving waves is correct but the
waves themselves are a closed circuits without mass. The change from
potential energy to kinetic energy is an accellerating term that is
limited in a closed circuit by a decelleration of change or
transformation of energy. For energy to be transported outside the
boundary then mass is a requirement.

sorry, but no. mass is not a requirement for transporting energy.

The same interaction goes on inside a cathode ray tube where it is
mass or a particle that hits or impacts the inside of the screen.
It is the same action that levitates an aluminum can(mass) and lofts
it thru the air into a bin. In other words it is similar to the time
taken for energy to change from a kinetic to a potential energy within
mass.
An analogy is the amount of energy and time taken for heated water to
change into steam.Gauss shows that to change from a static form
to a dynamic form both time and mass are the metrics that are used.
And that is true for both classical and particle physics where true
*analysis of the universe must be the same regardless of the methods
used.
This does not mean that present radiators do not radiate, it means
that present day antennas do not radiate efficiently as they only
account for approx 90% of that which creates radiation. I state again,
that when transporting energy there is an absolute necessity for mass,
and it is mass that escapes from a energy field where the *energy
field is in the form of a closed circuit.
If you so desire you can fall in *line with present day thinking that
a particle is sometimes a wave but the same source clearly states that
radiation is not fully understood, so the choice is yours tho it is
acknoweledged as not fully explainable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

particles are particles and waves are waves unless you start talking
quantum mechanics when all bets are off... fortunately quantum
mechanics is not needed to discuss electromagnetic phenomena. if
there were 10% missing energy in the maxwell equations i am quite sure
it would have been found by now, we can measure waves much more
accurately than that and have been able to for many years. the
verifications of accuracy of nec and other programs based on maxwell's
equations shows that quite well. if you don't believe it, find the
missing terms and publish them in a peer reviewed journal so they can
be shot full of holes.

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Dec 10, 7:47*am, Dave wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:24*am, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 9, 7:43*pm, Dave wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:30*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

*"Dave" ...
On Dec 8, 8:51 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"JIMMIE"
...
On Dec 7, 3:03 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Lets make sure I follow, You are saying that radio communication
occurs because and antenna emits statically charged particle that then
imparts their charge to the receiving antenna when they strike the
antenna. Is this what you are saying.

Yes. But in form of longitudinal waves. Electrons go out and come back
from
the end of radiator. For this reason he can wrote: "the idea of point
radiation which leads to efficient small volume antennas.
And following these edicts I have been able to make radiators of a
smnaller volume that is known in the present state of the art."

When electrons oscillate in a transmitter the voltage at the end of a
radiator is doubled and the strong Gauss electric field is produced. Such
waves are longitudinal.

Exactly which particles are you saying are responsible for this?.

Here are many hypothesis. One of them is the Diracs electron see.. So the
electrons in the conductor kick the electrons in the space. But it is not
important. Radio people should know which part of the radiator radiate and
what the waves a normal pressure waves or artifical TEM waves.
S*
so how do antennas encased in insulators work at all?

For this Maxwell invented the displacement current. It is oscillating
current in insulators. In insulators are charges which can not flow bat only
can oscillate. They can oscillate to and fro and/or rotate about some angle.

For the transverse wave they rotate.
For longitudinal to and fro.

But such seperate waves are only in the math. Real waves have always the two
components. Always dominate the longitudinal.
S*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

but you said that "conductor kick the electrons in the space", now its
not electrons? *So which is it? *do you believe in art and his
particles that get kicked off the diamagnetic elements, or in the
maxwell displacement current that requires no particles?

maxwell's math only describes the real waves and they are always
transverse. the only fictional mathematical waves are standing
waves... they aren't real waves, just figments of someone's bad math
meant to confuse poor amateurs.

Hold it now! The present aproach involving waves is correct but the
waves themselves are a closed circuits without mass. The change from
potential energy to kinetic energy is an accellerating term that is
limited in a closed circuit by a decelleration of change or
transformation of energy. For energy to be transported outside the
boundary then mass is a requirement.

sorry, but no. *mass is not a requirement for transporting energy

I am willing to learn! What is the carrier for energy and how?







The same interaction goes on inside a cathode ray tube where it is
mass or a particle that hits or impacts the inside of the screen.
It is the same action that levitates an aluminum can(mass) and lofts
it thru the air into a bin. In other words it is similar to the time
taken for energy to change from a kinetic to a potential energy within
mass.
An analogy is the amount of energy and time taken for heated water to
change into steam.Gauss shows that to change from a static form
to a dynamic form both time and mass are the metrics that are used.
And that is true for both classical and particle physics where true
*analysis of the universe must be the same regardless of the methods
used.
This does not mean that present radiators do not radiate, it means
that present day antennas do not radiate efficiently as they only
account for approx 90% of that which creates radiation. I state again,
that when transporting energy there is an absolute necessity for mass,
and it is mass that escapes from a energy field where the *energy
field is in the form of a closed circuit.
If you so desire you can fall in *line with present day thinking that
a particle is sometimes a wave but the same source clearly states that
radiation is not fully understood, so the choice is yours tho it is
acknoweledged as not fully explainable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

particles are particles and waves are waves

Quite correct, one is an adjective and the other is a noun.
You can put a particle into a container, a wave you cannot



unless you start talking
quantum mechanics when all bets are off...

An answer in science is acceptable if it matches well known facts
So here we have two sciences that squable about who is right and who
is wrong in describing the same phenomina



fortunately quantum
mechanics is not needed to discuss electromagnetic phenomena. *if
there were 10% missing energy in the maxwell equations i am quite sure
it would have been found by now,

A planar design of radiator does not conform with Maxwell's equations.
Following Maxwell's equations provides accountability of all forces
and NEC programs are very capable of showing this by divulging that
same 10% of missing energy.



we can measure waves much more
accurately than that and have been able to for many years. *the
verifications of accuracy of nec and other programs based on maxwell's
equations shows that quite well. *if you don't believe it, find the
missing terms and publish them in a peer reviewed journal so they

can
be shot full of holes.

The relevent term was added in the Maxwell corrections of his
equations. See the sample on my page.

How about supplying some facts to back up your claims so they can be
discussed?

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Dec 10, 4:44*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 10, 7:47*am, Dave wrote:



On Dec 10, 3:24*am, Art Unwin wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:43*pm, Dave wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:30*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

*"Dave" ...
On Dec 8, 8:51 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"JIMMIE"
...
On Dec 7, 3:03 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Lets make sure I follow, You are saying that radio communication
occurs because and antenna emits statically charged particle that then
imparts their charge to the receiving antenna when they strike the
antenna. Is this what you are saying.

Yes. But in form of longitudinal waves. Electrons go out and come back
from
the end of radiator. For this reason he can wrote: "the idea of point
radiation which leads to efficient small volume antennas.
And following these edicts I have been able to make radiators of a
smnaller volume that is known in the present state of the art."

When electrons oscillate in a transmitter the voltage at the end of a
radiator is doubled and the strong Gauss electric field is produced. Such
waves are longitudinal.

Exactly which particles are you saying are responsible for this?.

Here are many hypothesis. One of them is the Diracs electron see. So the
electrons in the conductor kick the electrons in the space. But it is not
important. Radio people should know which part of the radiator radiate and
what the waves a normal pressure waves or artifical TEM waves.
S*
so how do antennas encased in insulators work at all?

For this Maxwell invented the displacement current. It is oscillating
current in insulators. In insulators are charges which can not flow bat only
can oscillate. They can oscillate to and fro and/or rotate about some angle.

For the transverse wave they rotate.
For longitudinal to and fro.

But such seperate waves are only in the math. Real waves have always the two
components. Always dominate the longitudinal.
S*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

but you said that "conductor kick the electrons in the space", now its
not electrons? *So which is it? *do you believe in art and his
particles that get kicked off the diamagnetic elements, or in the
maxwell displacement current that requires no particles?

maxwell's math only describes the real waves and they are always
transverse. the only fictional mathematical waves are standing
waves... they aren't real waves, just figments of someone's bad math
meant to confuse poor amateurs.

Hold it now! The present aproach involving waves is correct but the
waves themselves are a closed circuits without mass. The change from
potential energy to kinetic energy is an accellerating term that is
limited in a closed circuit by a decelleration of change or
transformation of energy. For energy to be transported outside the
boundary then mass is a requirement.

sorry, but no. *mass is not a requirement for transporting energy

I am willing to learn! What is the carrier for energy and how?




photons are one thing that can carry energy but have no mass.
electric field interactions between electrons transfer energy with no
mass.







The same interaction goes on inside a cathode ray tube where it is
mass or a particle that hits or impacts the inside of the screen.
It is the same action that levitates an aluminum can(mass) and lofts
it thru the air into a bin. In other words it is similar to the time
taken for energy to change from a kinetic to a potential energy within
mass.
An analogy is the amount of energy and time taken for heated water to
change into steam.Gauss shows that to change from a static form
to a dynamic form both time and mass are the metrics that are used.
And that is true for both classical and particle physics where true
*analysis of the universe must be the same regardless of the methods
used.
This does not mean that present radiators do not radiate, it means
that present day antennas do not radiate efficiently as they only
account for approx 90% of that which creates radiation. I state again,
that when transporting energy there is an absolute necessity for mass,
and it is mass that escapes from a energy field where the *energy
field is in the form of a closed circuit.
If you so desire you can fall in *line with present day thinking that
a particle is sometimes a wave but the same source clearly states that
radiation is not fully understood, so the choice is yours tho it is
acknoweledged as not fully explainable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

particles are particles and waves are waves

Quite correct, one is an adjective and the other is a noun.
You can put a particle into a container, a wave you cannot

waves reside just fine in containers. take a look at cavity
resonators some day. in my dictionary 'wave' is a perfectly good noun
or verb, i see no use of it as an adjective... maybe you need a new
dictionary.


*unless you start talking

quantum mechanics when all bets are off...

An answer in science is acceptable if it matches well known facts
So here we have two sciences that squable about who is right and who
is wrong in describing the same phenomina

*fortunately quantum

mechanics is not needed to discuss electromagnetic phenomena. *if
there were 10% missing energy in the maxwell equations i am quite sure
it would have been found by now,

A planar design of radiator does not conform with Maxwell's equations.
Following Maxwell's equations provides accountability of all forces
and NEC programs are very capable of showing this by divulging that
same 10% of missing energy.

of course it does, maxwell's equations make no reference to the
geometry of conductors.


we can measure waves much more

accurately than that and have been able to for many years. *the
verifications of accuracy of nec and other programs based on maxwell's
equations shows that quite well. *if you don't believe it, find the
missing terms and publish them in a peer reviewed journal so they

can

be shot full of holes.

The relevent term was added in the Maxwell corrections of his
equations. See the sample on my page.

How about supplying some facts to back up your claims so they can be
discussed?- Hide quoted text -

i make no claims, i am providing well know facts that easily disprove
your claims... it is therefore your obligation as the proponent of
this new theory to explain how your theory properly explains these
facts. and to get your theory accepted it is up to you to show how
your theory explains it BETTER than existing theories. THAT is how
the scientific method works, i should know because my employer decided
that part of my title is now 'Scientist'. I objected, insisting that
i wanted to put 'Mad' in front of it, but they wouldn't buy that this
time.

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

"Dave" wrote
...
On Dec 10, 4:44 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

sorry, but no. mass is not a requirement for transporting energy

I am willing to learn! What is the carrier for energy and how?




photons are one thing that can carry energy but have no mass.
electric field interactions between electrons transfer energy with no
mass.

The photons and the fields are the math. In math are assumptions and
simplifications. Math is a piece to teach for students,
S*

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 some gomer wrote:

Following Maxwell's equations provides accountability of all forces
and NEC programs are very capable of showing this by divulging that
same 10% of missing energy.
By the addition of considerable textual chaff (not included here),
this last demand is saved from being embarrassingly close to:
How about supplying some facts to back up your claims so they can be
discussed?

Any NEC program (expressly allowed in the first statement's premise)
will show that a dipole:
1. In free space;
2. x coordinate -0.245714 wavelength;
3. x coordinate 0.245714 wavelength;
4. 11 segments;
5. 1mm diameter copper wire;
6. excited at first resonance

Result: 97.5%

So, clearly the first claim of 10% missing energy is a product of
misinformation and is easily accounted by the allowable method (NEC)
contained within the erroneous statement.

However, let's examine the source of that 2.5% loss. If I were to
simply use NEC's capacity to render the copper into perfect wire (no
other changes made to the parts 1. through 6 above); then

Result: 99.7%

Whoops!!!!! no copper, and still not perfect?

This, too, is accountable within NEC as accumulated math error of too
few samples (segments). So, we simple amend part 4. above to increase
the number of segments to 111; then

Result: 100.00%

*******************

I can fully expect the wheeze that the antenna is not in equilibrium
(sic). Without pointing out that what is already 100.00% efficiency
could not possibly be improved upon, I will instead increase the
frequency of excitation to put that structure into equilibrium (sic);
then

Result: 100.00%
or 0 improvement.

Having indulged the fantasies of equilibrium (sic), it is time to
press in the opposite direction, let's say to 1/10th equilibrium
(sic); then

Result: 100.00%
Howsaboutthat!?

*******************

So, using the allowable tools to investigate the claim of a missing
10% efficiency, it has been shown that this claim is wholly without
merit and lacks any demonstrable basis.

I don't expect any counter proof that will be expressed with the same
professional level of specification offered here, nor performable
within the 3 minutes it took me to do this (barring the time to type
this all out).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Dec 10, 5:49*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Dave" ...
On Dec 10, 4:44 pm, Art Unwin wrote:



sorry, but no. mass is not a requirement for transporting energy

I am willing to learn! What is the carrier for energy and how?

photons are one thing that can carry energy but have no mass.

electric field interactions between electrons transfer energy with no
mass.

The photons and the fields are the math. In math are assumptions and
simplifications. Math is a piece to teach for students,
S*

photons and fields are measurable things. equations describe the
observations.