Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:04:28 -0500, Registered User
wrote:

Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means
high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving").
Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma.

I was wondering about the latter as a possibility but couldn't find
the proper words. My interpretation is although the individual fields
may vary the total potential of the fields is constant. Is this
correct?

Electrostatic is properly applied to charge that is NOT moving, or
moving very slowly.

The same thing can be said of Magnetostatics as being derived from a
current that is constant, or altering very slowly.

The sense of either of these strict terms residing in the RF denotes
the poverty of idea that takes up residence here as invention. There
is plenty of examples to be found on the Web too. It is unfortunate,
like the camel's nose under the Arab's tent, that taking "very slowly"
and winding out the tach to 100GHz is the pollution of meaning.

What we are concerned here with is electromagnetics infrequently known
as electrodynamics and rarely as magnetodynamics. The sense behind
electromagnetics is inclusive of dynamics of which statics is a
special case.

Dynamics, of course, means time-varying. In EMF, or electromagnetics,
what varies is magnitude and/or polarity of the electric and magnetic
field. What you find "constant" about the fields (properly observed
as plural) is in their orthogonality (one field is building the other
as it decays in amplitude).

Well, language can be a barrier here when you say "around the cone."

I should have said the current flows around the cone parallel to its
base.

That doesn't happen.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:04:28 -0500, Registered User
wrote:

Static comes in two flavors. One means "not moving." The other means
high potential (which can be "not moving" AND, ironically, "moving").
Such is the legacy of electrostatic potential covering DC to Gamma.

I was wondering about the latter as a possibility but couldn't find
the proper words. My interpretation is although the individual fields
may vary the total potential of the fields is constant. Is this
correct?

Electrostatic is properly applied to charge that is NOT moving, or
moving very slowly.

The same thing can be said of Magnetostatics as being derived from a
current that is constant, or altering very slowly.

The sense of either of these strict terms residing in the RF denotes
the poverty of idea that takes up residence here as invention. There
is plenty of examples to be found on the Web too. It is unfortunate,
like the camel's nose under the Arab's tent, that taking "very slowly"
and winding out the tach to 100GHz is the pollution of meaning.

What we are concerned here with is electromagnetics infrequently known
as electrodynamics and rarely as magnetodynamics. The sense behind
electromagnetics is inclusive of dynamics of which statics is a
special case.

Between statics and dynamics is kinetics. EM is the kinetics.
S*

Dynamics, of course, means time-varying. In EMF, or electromagnetics,
what varies is magnitude and/or polarity of the electric and magnetic
field. What you find "constant" about the fields (properly observed
as plural) is in their orthogonality (one field is building the other
as it decays in amplitude).

Well, language can be a barrier here when you say "around the cone."

I should have said the current flows around the cone parallel to its
base.

That doesn't happen.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in
:

Between statics and dynamics is kinetics. EM is the kinetics.


This could either get very confusing, or very revealing, not sure which yet.
I found that no terms I knew fitted that well so I ended up using 'flux' and
'stasis' NOT to be confused with motion and stillness. By which I mean motion
and stillness are the phenomenon, but flux and stasis are what lies beyond,
in a pattern of information for want of better expression. To illustrate, a
tap turned to release a flow of water often shows a stationary pattern while
water is obviously flowing. That pattern is a stasis, but the water is not
still. I don't know how useful this is when resolving a distinction between
kinetics and dynamics, but it does look like we have to be careful about how
we use these terms or we might not know which we're talking about, the
standing pattern, or a manifest stillness. If we can't be clear on it we
might as well be trying to pin down the 'evanescence of soul'. (Richard
Clark, that was a good one, it's right up there with the better phrases from
Douglas Adams.)

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:10:28 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

that writing has topspin, it carries. I might try it.

It was written 101 years ago. Freely available at:
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a859

Other Bennett titles I recommend:
"The Card, a Story of Adventure in the Five Towns"
"The Grand Babylon Hotel"
"How to Live on 24 Hours a Day"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

Richard Clark wrote in
:

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:10:28 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

that writing has topspin, it carries. I might try it.

It was written 101 years ago. Freely available at:
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a859

Other Bennett titles I recommend:
"The Card, a Story of Adventure in the Five Towns"
"The Grand Babylon Hotel"
"How to Live on 24 Hours a Day"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Strange! So many things make me think of a certain style that goes with the
time, that feels old, the kind of thing that pervades early science fiction
or romance or Victoriana in general. That extract had a drive a clarity that
could easily be taken for something post-William-Gibson but without the
obvious futuristic affectations. My dad was born 100 years ago, so I will
read this stuff, it might give a useful perspective on how people saw their
times, instead of how we have been so often made to see them.

(And if anyone can find anything to do with antennas here now I admire their
skill :)

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:29:37 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

(And if anyone can find anything to do with antennas here now I admire their
skill :)

Art has made claims for discovering antennas that were commonplace for
Bellini and Tosi who he refuses to acknowledge predating his
"theories" 102 years ago.
http://www.astrosol.ch/thisandthat/5...e07/index.html

And, as you are such a willing prospect for situational humour (as
just such as we indulge here anyway without regard for literary nor
scientific merit); I push the envelope by enlarging upon parallels to
Art - both literal and figurative (as evidenced by the last line):

This unique seat was occupied by the principal player, who wore a
humorous wig and a brilliant and expensive scarlet costume. He was a
fairly able judge, but he had mistaken his vocation; his rare talent
for making third-rate jokes would have brought him a fortune in the
world of musical comedy. His salary was a hundred a week; better
comedians have earned less. On the present occasion he was in the
midst of a double row of fashionable hats, and beneath the hats were
the faces of fourteen feminine relatives and acquaintances. These hats
performed the function of 'dressing' the house. The principal player
endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone
in his glory, but he failed.

There were four other leading actors: Mr. Pennington, K.C., and Mr.
Vodrey, K.C., engaged by the plaintiff, and Mr. Cass, K.C., and Mr.
Crepitude, K.C., engaged by the defendant. These artistes were the
stars of their profession, nominally less glittering, but really far
more glittering than the player in scarlet. Their wigs were of
inferior quality to his, and their costumes shabby, but they did not
mind, for whereas he got a hundred a week, they each got a hundred a
day. Three junior performers received ten guineas a day apiece: one of
them held a watching brief for the Dean and Chapter of the Abbey, who,
being members of a Christian fraternity, were pained and horrified by
the defendants' implication that they had given interment to a valet,
and who were determined to resist exhumation at all hazards. The
supers in the drama, whose business it was to whisper to each other
and to the players, consisted of solicitors, solicitors' clerks, and
experts; their combined emoluments worked out at the rate of a hundred
and fifty pounds a day. Twelve excellent men in the jury-box received
between them about as much as would have kept a K.C. alive for five
minutes. The total expenses of production thus amounted to something
like six or seven hundred pounds a day. The preliminary expenses had
run into several thousands. The enterprise could have been made
remunerative by hiring for it Convent Garden Theatre and selling
stalls as for Tettrazzini and Caruso, but in the absurd auditorium
chosen, crammed though it was to the perilous doors, the loss was
necessarily terrific. Fortunately the affair was subsidized; not
merely by the State, but also by those two wealthy capitalists,
Whitney C. Witt and Mr. Oxford; and therefore the management were in a
position to ignore paltry financial considerations and to practise art
for art's sake.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

Richard Clark wrote in
:

The principal player
endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone
in his glory, but he failed.


Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind he Arthur Daley. Fits like
the proverbial.

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote
. ..
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in
:

Between statics and dynamics is kinetics. EM is the kinetics.

Should be kinematics (not kinetcs): "Branch of physics concerned with the
geometrically possible motion of a body or system of bodies, without
consideration of the forces involved. It describes the spatial position of
bodies or systems, their velocities, and their acceleration".

The kinematics describes motions without consideration what and why.

This could either get very confusing, or very revealing, not sure which
yet.

EM is the first step. No the next for the incompressible fluid. The electron
were discovered and the dynamics are done for them.

I found that no terms I knew fitted that well so I ended up using 'flux'
and
'stasis' NOT to be confused with motion and stillness. By which I mean
motion
and stillness are the phenomenon, but flux and stasis are what lies
beyond,
in a pattern of information for want of better expression. To illustrate,
a
tap turned to release a flow of water often shows a stationary pattern
while
water is obviously flowing. That pattern is a stasis, but the water is not
still. I don't know how useful this is when resolving a distinction
between
kinetics and dynamics, but it does look like we have to be careful about
how
we use these terms or we might not know which we're talking about, the
standing pattern, or a manifest stillness. If we can't be clear on it we
might as well be trying to pin down the 'evanescence of soul'. (Richard
Clark, that was a good one, it's right up there with the better phrases
from
Douglas Adams.)

For flows are also the flow kinematics and the flow dynamics.
"An accurate theory of electromagnetism, known as classical
electromagnetism, was developed by various physicists over the course of the
19th century, culminating in the work of James Clerk Maxwell, who unified
the preceding developments into a single theory and discovered the
electromagnetic nature of light. In classical electromagnetism, the
electromagnetic field obeys a set of equations known as Maxwell's equations,
and the electromagnetic force is given by the Lorentz force law. "

It seams that EM is the field kinematics.

S*

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:44:40 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in
:

The principal player
endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone
in his glory, but he failed.


Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind he Arthur Daley. Fits like
the proverbial.

I am not familiar with Arthur Daley, but your close editing has very
much converged on the psychology of this side-topic. We have with us
now a late-coming ankle bighter kinetically trying to compete for that
humorous wig.

However, that aside and in fitting to the context of the group, I
offered a link to an equally old reference of Bellini and Tosi that
should be very interesting to you, as a SWLer. If you revisit that
reference, then take note of the goniometer where its receive
application would allow you to perform your own crude beam steering
using two orthogonal long wire antennas (or crossed dipoles).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Faraday shields and radiation and misinterpretations
 

Richard Clark wrote in
:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:44:40 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in
m:

The principal player
endeavoured to behave as though under the illusion that he was alone
in his glory, but he failed.


Interesting. A very different Art comes to mind he Arthur Daley. Fits
like the proverbial.

I am not familiar with Arthur Daley, but your close editing has very
much converged on the psychology of this side-topic. We have with us
now a late-coming ankle bighter kinetically trying to compete for that
humorous wig.


Daley's great, well worth trying to see. (Minder, TV shows circa 1979 or so).
The books aren't high literature but they are good (written by Anthony
Masters) and do offer something beyond the shows, and they stand some repeat
reading too. I think Wodehouse is better and funnier, but Minder really has
its perks. Cheerful Charlie Chisolm, for example... Best detective since
Clouseau.

However, that aside and in fitting to the context of the group, I
offered a link to an equally old reference of Bellini and Tosi that
should be very interesting to you, as a SWLer. If you revisit that
reference, then take note of the goniometer where its receive
application would allow you to perform your own crude beam steering
using two orthogonal long wire antennas (or crossed dipoles).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Yes, I ought to have said, that IS interesting to me. I've often wondered
about direction finding so I earmarked it on the strength of that for a full
read soon. (Didn't have time today..)