Art Unwin wrote in news:15904250-69bb-4aba-8a3f-
:

If you go back to the arbitary boundary of the Gaussian law of statics
and view it as a
Faraday shield it all becomes quite simple. If one adds a time varying
field you have the duplicate of Maxwells laws for radiation, where
the outside of the boundary is the radiator.
The Faraday shield supplies the transition from a static to a dynamic
field for xmission and
the reverse action for receiving.
Very basic my dear Watson, and a vindication that particles and not
waves create radiation
which puts it in line with deductions when other methods are applied.

Doesn't look basic, and I suspect it never will to me. The only thing I
can get from this is the idea that a particle model will do what the wave
one does, which isn't surprising but I've been told that particle based
models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles. The other
explanations seemed to grip, but not this one. I'll leave well alone now, but
if anyone else takes up the discussion, I'll read it and only comment if I
can't stop myself..

On Dec 1, 9:25*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:15904250-69bb-4aba-8a3f-
:

If you go back to the arbitary boundary of the Gaussian law of statics
and view it as a
Faraday shield it all becomes quite simple. If one adds a time varying
field you have the duplicate of Maxwells laws for radiation, *where
the outside of the boundary is the radiator.
The Faraday shield supplies the transition from a static to a dynamic
field for xmission and
the reverse action *for receiving.
Very basic my dear Watson, and a vindication that particles and not
waves create radiation
which puts it in line with deductions when other methods are applied.

Doesn't look basic, and I suspect it never will to me. The only thing I
can get from this is the idea that a particle model will do what the wave
one does, which isn't surprising but I've been told that particle based
models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles. The other
explanations seemed to grip, but not this one. I'll leave well alone now, but
if anyone else takes up the discussion, I'll read it and only comment if I
can't stop myself..

Yep, that's about right. In fact, my advice if you do get into that
situation (where quantization of energy is important), is to NOT think
of particles or waves, but realize that quanta of electromagnetic
radiation behave exactly as they behave, which is neither exactly like
waves nor exactly like particles. One of Richard Feynman's physics
lectures covered what I think is a lovely example of this: how you
can NOT explain the results of the experiment he sets up, using EITHER
wave OR particle behaviour. I highly recommend it, to arm yourself
against people who get into the particle-vs-wave battle. I believe
it's the sixth of what has been published as Feynman's "Six Easy
Pieces."

Cheers,
Tom

K7ITM wrote in news:23a4e09e-cb46-49a9-a096-
:

In fact, my advice if you do get into that
situation (where quantization of energy is important), is to NOT think
of particles or waves, but realize that quanta of electromagnetic
radiation behave exactly as they behave, which is neither exactly like
waves nor exactly like particles. One of Richard Feynman's physics
lectures covered what I think is a lovely example of this: how you
can NOT explain the results of the experiment he sets up, using EITHER
wave OR particle behaviour. I highly recommend it, to arm yourself
against people who get into the particle-vs-wave battle. I believe
it's the sixth of what has been published as Feynman's "Six Easy
Pieces."


That's what I kept telling myself when I first read about it 20 years ago,
that light was neither wave, nor particle, but something else that can appear
as either, or both. It felt like a kind of fence-sitting tautology at the
time, but it really seemed the only way to have any hope of resolving
(sometimes foolish) paradoxes, so it's gratifying to know that Feynman says
it too. I don't know if he's written anything a layman can easily work
through, that doesn't come with lots of maths without which accompanying text
doesn't help much, but if he has I'll try to read it.

I have various thoughts of my own, too off-topic to go into most likely, but
I'll indulge in one of them. The duality/exclusion, etc is often expressed in
various ways, but the one I find most intersting is based not in massenergy
but information, that of isolation and continuity. People have made computers
of both types now, basically the Turing machine and the operational
amplifier. I suspect we have a third type, the brain, that isn't 'modelled'
on either type but uses the quanta as they actually are. Though whether
attempts to make actual quantum computers will be anything like what the
brain does, I have no idea. But it seems to imply that there might be a
'conservation of information' law as there are such laws for mass and energy
or mass-energy. Maybe information is more fundamental than either. If so,
some very strange science is going to emerge (and I suspect it won't be
quantum theory that gets us anywhere, as such, especially given the
Copenhagen Interpretaion and what that implies about 'knowing', but the tools
it enables us to build are another matter, I think they're going to show
plenty, once we have enough new info to interpret).

As continuity as well as isolation is a fundamental aspect of whatever is
'underneath', it means I have no reason to reject a wave model of
electrodynamics if it works, so I won't.

On Dec 3, 12:25*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

( Richard Feynman lectures)
... I don't know if he's written anything a layman can easily work
through, that doesn't come with lots of maths without which accompanying text
doesn't help much, but if he has I'll try to read it.

I think one of the key things that made his physics lectures popular
is that they were delivered without a whole lot of math. You could
get into that if you wanted, but you could also get a lot out of just
listening to the _ideas_.

If you drop me an email, perhaps I can send you a bit more about this
particular lecture...

Cheers,
Tom

On Dec 3, 6:52*pm, K7ITM wrote:
On Dec 3, 12:25*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

( *Richard Feynman lectures)

... I don't know if he's written anything a layman can easily work
through, that doesn't come with lots of maths without which accompanying text
doesn't help much, but if he has I'll try to read it.

I think one of the key things that made his physics lectures popular
is that they were delivered without a whole lot of math. *You could
get into that if you wanted, but you could also get a lot out of just
listening to the _ideas_.

If you drop me an email, perhaps I can send you a bit more about this
particular lecture...

Cheers,
Tom

That is oh so true! The masters started with an observation of an
occurence and not from
a rendering of mathematics. With more observations it became natural
to align the Universe via mathematics which, as with a jig saw puzzle,
fits together nicely.,
It would seem today that scientists today are using mathematics via a
computer to churn out bundles of equations leaving the operator to
think of an observation that would fit the math. Of course,
mathematics provide imaginary answers similar to a quadratic equation
that finish up as multiple of false leads and deductions which
eventually requires the multiple use of constants to provide a
semblance of understanding of what has been provided.

K7ITM wrote in news:8b542276-db03-4c3d-9658-
:

On Dec 3, 12:25*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

( Richard Feynman lectures)
... I don't know if he's written anything a layman can easily work
through, that doesn't come with lots of maths without which accompanying
text
doesn't help much, but if he has I'll try to read it.

I think one of the key things that made his physics lectures popular
is that they were delivered without a whole lot of math. You could
get into that if you wanted, but you could also get a lot out of just
listening to the _ideas_.

If you drop me an email, perhaps I can send you a bit more about this
particular lecture...

Cheers,
Tom


Thankyou, I'll go for that. I've also been given two books by Marcus Chown,
who I found has a knack of conveying things clearly at some depth.
Entertaining too. My email is (slightly obfuscated) z dot crow at BTinternet
dot com for as long as I still use their service. (Contract runs out fairly
soon so even though they're ok I'm looking at alternatives..

On Dec 1, 11:25*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:15904250-69bb-4aba-8a3f-
:

If you go back to the arbitary boundary of the Gaussian law of statics
and view it as a
Faraday shield it all becomes quite simple. If one adds a time varying
field you have the duplicate of Maxwells laws for radiation, *where
the outside of the boundary is the radiator.
The Faraday shield supplies the transition from a static to a dynamic
field for xmission and
the reverse action *for receiving.
Very basic my dear Watson, and a vindication that particles and not
waves create radiation
which puts it in line with deductions when other methods are applied.

Doesn't look basic, and I suspect it never will to me. The only thing I
can get from this is the idea that a particle model will do what the wave
one does, which isn't surprising but I've been told that particle based
models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles. The other
explanations seemed to grip, but not this one. I'll leave well alone now, but
if anyone else takes up the discussion, I'll read it and only comment if I
can't stop myself..

Well I didn't tell all in the first place because so much untruths are
buried in people"s mind.
When the charge or particle hits the outside of the shield both the
electric and magnetic fields dissapate leaving just the static
particle adheared to the outside. Ofcourse non bound particles in the
air are immediatly attracted to the inside of the shield and move
along the inside of the shield to align themselves with the outside
static particles for equilibrium.
Now for the important stuff that will upset hams. The internal
particle moves to align itself with the outside particle. By moving it
generates a time varying current such that the electric and magnetic
fields that disapated on the outside are now REGENERATED on the
inside.
Most people see or think that the outside magnetic field can pierce
the shield, which is why the name magnetic loop came about. Fields do
NOT penetrate a Faraday shield. A electromagnetic shield is
regenerated by the newly formed internal current which then closes the
circuit.
To put this with the original explanation would be to much for hams to
digest so it is best to split it into two parts.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Doesn't look basic, and I suspect it never will to me. The only thing I
can get from this is the idea that a particle model will do what the wave
one does, which isn't surprising but I've been told that particle based
models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles. The other
explanations seemed to grip, but not this one. I'll leave well alone now, but
if anyone else takes up the discussion, I'll read it and only comment if I
can't stop myself..

It's not basic, and it's not real.

Art has made up a whole new wing of physics that has only the slightest
ties to reality. It involves neutrinos leaping from diamagnetic
materials to radiate. And only diamagnetic materials can radiate,
unless he revised his theories, which he does regularly. And there are
NO waves, just particles And antennas don't work properly unless they
are a multiple of a wavelength, but it's OK to roll all that wire up in
a ball so that a 160m antenna fits in a shoebox. And then you can use
that with a teeny Dish network dish for directionality. Despite the
fact that those dishes won't work reasonably at anything less than low
GHz frequencies.

He is, to put it very plainly, nuts.

tom
K0TAR

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
I've been told that particle based
models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles.

Consider that man's most ancient exposure to waves was
sea/ocean waves which, incidentally, consist of H2O
molecule particles.

Seems to me that everything that physically exists must
exist as a particle.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
I've been told that particle based
models are usually best left to situations (usually atomic scale quantum
mechanical) where the wave model won't do, and I've never seen anyone suggest
that wave-based theories of electromagnetics were inadequate (or inefficient)
for scales involving obviously large numbers of particles.

Consider that man's most ancient exposure to waves was
sea/ocean waves which, incidentally, consist of H2O
molecule particles.

Seems to me that everything that physically exists must
exist as a particle.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com