Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)
Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.
The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment! Is the difference involved with calculations
changes for sheets that are thinner than skin depth such as circuit
board traces or something else?
Where has my intuition gone wrong in opposing the books?

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Art Unwin wrote:
If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)

Yes, because the attenuation from an enclosure is made up of a
reflection loss and an absorption loss. The absorption loss is
proportional to both the thickness of the material and the frequency (
amongst other things). So a thin shield will have less attenuation at
low frequencies.

Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.

Why does intuition tell you that? My intuition tells me that you need
smaller holes as you increase the frequency?

Also when you refer to the size of holes are you referring to their
diameter, spacing or both?


The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment!

Why? The box had no holes! Adding holes will just degrade the screening
from the starting point of a continuous screen. The larger the
diameter of the holes the worse the screening will be degraded at a
particular frequency, and the degradation will also be proportional to
wavelength, large holes wrt wavelength, the more signal will leak through.


Jeff

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 4:49*am, Art Unwin wrote:
If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)
* *Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.

wrongo buzzard breath.

* * The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment! Is the difference involved with calculations
changes for sheets that are thinner than skin depth such as circuit
board traces or something else?
Where has my intuition gone wrong in opposing the books?

everywhere, right from the beginning.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Art Unwin wrote:
If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)

What did the Harvard experiment in Boston describe as the cause for
this? Some vague reference to an experiment somewhere does not show
anything. Provide a proper link if you want anyone to take the reference
seriously.


Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect.

I believe this conflicts with your particle concepts. Why should hole
size have any effect on spinning particles of different frequencies?

You position also is in conflict with general understanding. If you are
correct, what hole size blocks very high frequencies. You concept would
result in a simple wire frame enclosure.


This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.
The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment!

You may be ignoring the differences in the antennas. AM may have used a
ferrite loop, while FM may have been a whip. (We don't know because you
provide no details.)

Could one antenna be responding the magnetic component of the signal
more than the other? (We don't know because you provide no details.)


Is the difference involved with calculations
changes for sheets that are thinner than skin depth such as circuit
board traces or something else?

Type of materials, type of antenna, relative dimension may all play a
factor. You need to determine all of the effects that enter into the
situation and not focus on one or two.

Where has my intuition gone wrong in opposing the books?

Probably because you don't pay attention to the details and are relying
upon an understanding of the topic that is not correct.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 5:42*am, Jeff wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)

Yes, because the attenuation from an enclosure is made up of *a
reflection loss and an absorption loss. The absorption loss is
proportional to both the thickness of the material and the frequency (
amongst other things). So a thin shield will have less attenuation at
low frequencies.

Thanks first for your thoughtful response. The article mentions only
skin depth and frequency applied so in effect frequency is the only
variable
Agreed
The above states that as you go down in frequency (a longer
wavelength) that it becomes
easier for propagation to be available at the other side. Stated
another way the deeper the
the skin depth the more penetration occurs

* *Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.


Why does intuition tell you that? *My intuition tells me that you need
smaller holes as you increase the frequency?

The experiment shows that it is easier for the lower frequency to
penetrate to the other side than the higher frequency. Or another way
as you move higher in frequency a better blocking effect occurs. If I
add perforations the same progression arises with respect to hole
diameter. (Note in the experiment we only have two variables, skin
depth and frequency, everything else is seen as a constant by the
experimenter. Not knowing the thickness of the screen could possibly
bring us into the situation of circuit boards where the skin depth is
deeper than the trace thickness but that may be a red herring)
From my perspective adding holes will provide the FM wavelengths more
leverage
to penetrate to the other side!


Also when you refer to the size of holes are you referring to their
diameter, spacing or bot

I was comparing voids to bulk.



* * The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment!

Why? *The box had no holes! Adding holes will just degrade the screening
* from the starting point of a continuous screen. The larger the
diameter of the holes the worse the screening will be degraded at a
particular frequency, and the degradation will also be proportional to
wavelength, large holes wrt wavelength, the more signal will leak through..

agreed

Jeff

I used the perforations as a method of reducing the screening in both
cases to make a point

Jeff, I am stating that my path of thought took me into a different
direction from the books.
Thus I have to assume that my logic or aproach is in error. The
question thus is where is my error , That is where I need direction?

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 9:15*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)

What did the Harvard experiment in Boston describe as the cause for
this? Some vague reference to an experiment somewhere does not show
anything. Provide a proper link if you want anyone to take the reference
seriously.

* *Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect.

I believe this conflicts with your particle concepts. Why should hole
size have any effect on spinning particles of different frequencies?

You position also is in conflict with general understanding. If you are
correct, what hole size blocks very high frequencies. You concept would
result in a simple wire frame enclosure.

This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.
* * The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment!

You may be ignoring the differences in the antennas. AM may have used a
ferrite loop, while FM may have been a whip. (We don't know because you
provide no details.)

Could one antenna be responding the magnetic component of the signal
more than the other? (We don't know because you provide no details.)

Is the difference involved with calculations
changes for sheets that are thinner than skin depth such as circuit
board traces or something else?

Type of materials, type of antenna, relative dimension may all play a
factor. You need to determine all of the effects that enter into the
situation and not focus on one or two.

Where has my intuition gone wrong in opposing the books?

Probably because you don't pay attention to the details and are relying
upon an understanding of the topic that is not correct.

Thanks for your response.
The article only gave me the given facts for the experiment and
nothing more.Yes my concepts on radiation are in opposition to the
norm so I am using the facts presented as a way of destructing or
confirming my perceptions.
When I read up on Faraday shields the concept of "particles"
predominates as opposed to "waves" without exception and I am trying
to make some sense of these differences when considering propagation.
With respect to receive of the radio. Since the foil is flat and
without perforation it should be sensitive to everything thrown at it.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)
Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.
The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment! Is the difference involved with calculations
changes for sheets that are thinner than skin depth such as circuit
board traces or something else?
Where has my intuition gone wrong in opposing the books?


Shielding and grounding is a secret science, so secret and of military
importance that Don White Consultants would not teach foreigners
(damned furriners) how to shield a building from EMP.

w.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 21, 9:15 am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)
What did the Harvard experiment in Boston describe as the cause for
this? Some vague reference to an experiment somewhere does not show
anything. Provide a proper link if you want anyone to take the reference
seriously.

Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect.
I believe this conflicts with your particle concepts. Why should hole
size have any effect on spinning particles of different frequencies?

You position also is in conflict with general understanding. If you are
correct, what hole size blocks very high frequencies. You concept would
result in a simple wire frame enclosure.

This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.
The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment!
You may be ignoring the differences in the antennas. AM may have used a
ferrite loop, while FM may have been a whip. (We don't know because you
provide no details.)

Could one antenna be responding the magnetic component of the signal
more than the other? (We don't know because you provide no details.)

Is the difference involved with calculations
changes for sheets that are thinner than skin depth such as circuit
board traces or something else?
Type of materials, type of antenna, relative dimension may all play a
factor. You need to determine all of the effects that enter into the
situation and not focus on one or two.

Where has my intuition gone wrong in opposing the books?
Probably because you don't pay attention to the details and are relying
upon an understanding of the topic that is not correct.

Thanks for your response.
The article only gave me the given facts for the experiment and
nothing more.

If it is this article,
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...SkinDepth.html
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.
AM was significantly attenuated, too.
It specified the frequencies used and the associated skin depth.
The radio is also specified.

Using an extremely cheap radio as a measurement tool is not sound
technically.



Yes my concepts on radiation are in opposition to the
norm so I am using the facts presented as a way of destructing or
confirming my perceptions.



When I read up on Faraday shields the concept of "particles"
predominates as opposed to "waves" without exception and I am trying
to make some sense of these differences when considering propagation.

Perhaps it is a problem with how you do searches. On this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
There is no mention of particles as the means of transport to the
shield. Electrons are mentioned as they are part of the cage and respond
to applied fields.

With respect to receive of the radio. Since the foil is flat and
without perforation it should be sensitive to everything thrown at it.

But the experiment in question is about skin depth which does vary with
frequency.

Unless, of course, you are talking about some other Harvard article, but
we only have to guess, because you still don't identify it.

How do you expect us to know what you are really talking about?

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

"Helmut Wabnig" hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)
Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.
The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment! Is the difference involved with calculations
changes for sheets that are thinner than skin depth such as circuit
board traces or something else?
Where has my intuition gone wrong in opposing the books?


Shielding and grounding is a secret science, so secret and of military
importance that Don White Consultants would not teach foreigners
(damned furriners) how to shield a building from EMP.

The aether waves were, are and will be a secret. But we all want to guess
like the things are.
Fortunatly the papers by Stokes, Kelvin and many others are available on
line.
Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein are for teaching.
S*

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 11:59*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 21, 9:15 am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
If on places a am/fm radio inside a box made of thin aluminum foil the
radio will be able to hear am broadcast band but not the fm band.
(Experiment by Harvard in Boston)
What did the Harvard experiment in Boston describe as the cause for
this? Some vague reference to an experiment somewhere does not show
anything. Provide a proper link if you want anyone to take the reference
seriously.

* *Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect.
I believe this conflicts with your particle concepts. Why should hole
size have any effect on spinning particles of different frequencies?

You position also is in conflict with general understanding. If you are
correct, what hole size blocks very high frequencies. You concept would
result in a simple wire frame enclosure.

This would, I believe, opposes the progression of
skin depth with respect to frequency.
* * The books state for a mesh shield the perforations should be less
than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes the results obtained by
the box experiment!
You may be ignoring the differences in the antennas. AM may have used a
ferrite loop, while FM may have been a whip. (We don't know because you
provide no details.)

Could one antenna be responding the magnetic component of the signal
more than the other? (We don't know because you provide no details.)

Is the difference involved with calculations
changes for sheets that are thinner than skin depth such as circuit
board traces or something else?
Type of materials, type of antenna, relative dimension may all play a
factor. You need to determine all of the effects that enter into the
situation and not focus on one or two.

Where has my intuition gone wrong in opposing the books?
Probably because you don't pay attention to the details and are relying
upon an understanding of the topic that is not correct.

Thanks for your response.
The article only gave me the given facts for the experiment and
nothing more.

If it is this article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.
AM was significantly attenuated, too.
It specified the frequencies used and the associated skin depth.
The radio is also specified.

Your statement is correct

Using an extremely cheap radio as a measurement tool is not sound
technically.
Could be but that is what they used.



Yes my concepts on radiation are in opposition to the
norm so I am using the facts presented as a way of destructing or
confirming my perceptions.
When I read up on Faraday shields the concept of "particles"
predominates as opposed to "waves" without exception and I am trying
to make some sense of these differences when considering propagation.

Perhaps it is a problem with how you do searches. *On this pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
There is no mention of particles as the means of transport to the
shield. Electrons are mentioned as they are part of the cage and respond
to applied fields.
Yes they clearly state electrons which is a particle. It is extremely
small and of minimul mass which is why Einstein states that the speed
of light is a maximum.
The article you point to shows charges or fields which must be carried
by something like particles as proven in other theories such as
Quantum theory.
Fields and waves book by Ramo etc constantly lean on boundary laws
thru out there book and boundary laws clearly state the relationship
of static particles to equations relative to radiation.
If we are to refer to waves then accelleration demands mass so we need
a connection between waves and mass.
Assuming it is a wave that impinges on a Faraday cage we then have to
determine what half a charge comes about so that the charge cancels
and thus reverts to a time varying current. Again another puzzle!
Anyway the article that you point to shows a point charge which is
certainly not a wave which would be represented by a line of the
length used in top band.
As far as penetration goes the mass involved is always of the same
mass and ikt is only the charge that varies in frequency as shown by
the radius of spin in helical form of the charge.Thus again we have to
find a connection between wavelength and charge.Another obstical....
If you can point out why one cannot use boundary rules so that
particles are recognised as the carriers of charge the same as with
Quantum theory I would be very gratified. None of the group excepting
newcomers such as your self has provided proof of the inelligability
of my approach so I am forced to explore other facets
of radiation to determine why my aproach is in error.
I apologise for not being clear in the subject that creats problems
for newcomers such as yourself but to re iterate the discussion which
has been going on for years would be quite a hardship. However if as
a newcomer you can supply why static particles cannot be associated
with propergation you would be doing something different to the group
that are relying on zero facts and replacing it with insult and spam.
Thanks for responding in a sensible way .I would like to point out in
addition that existing antenna programs with optimizer based on
Maxwells equations rely very heavily on the maintenance of equilibrium
which is the foundation of my aproach which includes particles and
certainly not waves.
If we are going to throw out such programs we surely must know why
before we take such a step when the presence of particles appear to be
in the majority of aproaches.
Best regards
Art Unwin.......KB9MZ.....xg






With respect to receive of the radio. Since the foil is flat and
without perforation it should be sensitive to everything thrown at it.

But the experiment in question is about skin depth which does vary with
frequency.

Unless, of course, you are talking about some other Harvard article, but
we only have to guess, because you still don't identify it.

How do you expect us to know what you are really talking about?
I am fully aware that I am not clear with my questions but I have to
live with that.
The point is that I am still trying to find out why the group does not
accept the extension of a static field in equilibrium cannot be
connected to Maxwells equations when adding a time varying field a
train of thought covered by boundary rules that are used in many
places.
If we accept the above then we have agreement with

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:



The aether waves were, are and will be a secret.

Only to gibbering idiots like you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 4:59*pm, joe wrote:


If it is this article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, (MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti.../dp/0262520478

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...owViewpoints=1

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 3:25*pm, Bill wrote:
On Mar 21, 4:59*pm, joe wrote:



If it is this article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, *(MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

What does the book point to, waves or particles? We all have plenty of
books and all cannot agree on the subject on radiation! In other words
they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsered by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerety in challenging
their position.In addition they stated that it is not possible outside
the physcics spectrum to challenge anything which thus puts all in the
spectrum of crackpots. Dr Davis of MIT provided the mathematics
that confirmed the presense of particles, but mathematics was not
considered a reputable answer compared to the majority argument that
the mathematical aproach was illegal.
So waves hold the majority in the books but by its very presence all
understanding of radiation has been stymied for the last hundred
years by the resistance to change without any accumpanying facts and
where physicists refuse to review to re examine what they state is now
"cast in stone." New books are written every year via plagarisation
for personal profit where the professor orders purchase of such books
for his pay off. Not one has come out with a review of radiation and
why progress has been stymied. And that goes for Radcom and QST who
have no real interest in advancing the hobby of its members.
Regards
Art

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Art Unwin wrote:


Yes my concepts on radiation are in opposition to the
norm so I am using the facts presented as a way of destructing or
confirming my perceptions.
When I read up on Faraday shields the concept of "particles"
predominates as opposed to "waves" without exception and I am trying
to make some sense of these differences when considering propagation.
Perhaps it is a problem with how you do searches. On this pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
There is no mention of particles as the means of transport to the
shield. Electrons are mentioned as they are part of the cage and respond
to applied fields.
Yes they clearly state electrons which is a particle.

But the electron is NOT how the signal gets to the shield. You need to
read more carefully.


It is extremely
small and of minimul mass which is why Einstein states that the speed
of light is a maximum.
The article you point to shows charges or fields which must be carried
by something like particles as proven in other theories such as
Quantum theory.
Fields and waves book by Ramo etc constantly lean on boundary laws
thru out there book and boundary laws clearly state the relationship
of static particles to equations relative to radiation.
If we are to refer to waves then accelleration demands mass so we need
a connection between waves and mass.

Try thinking in terms of fields and charges.


Assuming it is a wave that impinges on a Faraday cage we then have to
determine what half a charge comes about so that the charge cancels
and thus reverts to a time varying current. Again another puzzle!

A puzzle because you apply your misconceptions BEFORE first
understanding what is there.


Anyway the article that you point to shows a point charge which is
certainly not a wave which would be represented by a line of the
length used in top band.

Only because you interpret it that way. The article does not mention
point charge as causing the behavior, externally applied fields are
mentioned.

As far as penetration goes the mass involved is always of the same
mass and ikt is only the charge that varies in frequency as shown by
the radius of spin in helical form of the charge.Thus again we have to
find a connection between wavelength and charge.Another obstical....


If you can point out why one cannot use boundary rules so that
particles are recognised as the carriers of charge the same as with
Quantum theory I would be very gratified.

Gauss' laws refer to flux and do not require carriers of charge to exist.

None of the group excepting
newcomers such as your self has provided proof of the inelligability
of my approach so I am forced to explore other facets
of radiation to determine why my aproach is in error.

A lot of that has to do with your inability to communicate adequately.

I apologise for not being clear in the subject that creats problems
for newcomers such as yourself but to re iterate the discussion which
has been going on for years would be quite a hardship. However if as
a newcomer you can supply why static particles cannot be associated
with propergation you would be doing something different to the group
that are relying on zero facts and replacing it with insult and spam.

If you are trying to present a new concept, then it is up to you to show
why, and that, it is right. Do that in a clear convincing way, with the
appropriate math, and you might foster a worthwhile discussion.

The wrong way to do this is throw a half-baked idea out and expect
others to accept it. You'll never prove a point that way.


Thanks for responding in a sensible way .


I would like to point out in
addition that existing antenna programs with optimizer based on
Maxwells equations rely very heavily on the maintenance of equilibrium
which is the foundation of my aproach which includes particles and
certainly not waves.

Which of these antenna programs have you analyzed to the level to make
this statement? Have you looked at the source code of the programs?

If we are going to throw out such programs we surely must know why
before we take such a step when the presence of particles appear to be
in the majority of aproaches.

Why throw out the programs? Using waves is perfectly correct and
adequate for them.

Waves provide an adequate model for propagation. Particles may be
adequate at the quantum level. Both are ways to describe something.
Neither may adequately describe thing in all cases. They are models for
what happens. As long as the models are applied appropriately, there is
no problem. Applying a model inappropriately is bound to cause problems.



Best regards
Art Unwin.......KB9MZ.....xg





snip


How do you expect us to know what you are really talking about?
I am fully aware that I am not clear with my questions but I have to
live with that.
The point is that I am still trying to find out why the group does not
accept the extension of a static field in equilibrium cannot be
connected to Maxwells equations when adding a time varying field a
train of thought covered by boundary rules that are used in many
places.

That is solely because YOU can't describe your concepts adequately.
Putting "+t" on both sides of an equation does not necessarily lead to
anything meaningful. IF you were to describe your thoughts adequately,
perhaps someone would show you where you make errors.


If we accept the above then we have agreement with

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 4:33*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Yes my concepts on radiation are in opposition to the
norm so I am using the facts presented as a way of destructing or
confirming my perceptions.
When I read up on Faraday shields the concept of "particles"
predominates as opposed to "waves" without exception and I am trying
to make some sense of these differences when considering propagation.
Perhaps it is a problem with how you do searches. *On this pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
There is no mention of particles as the means of transport to the
shield. Electrons are mentioned as they are part of the cage and respond
to applied fields.
Yes they clearly state electrons which is a particle.

But the electron is NOT how the signal gets to the shield. You need to
read more carefully.

It is extremely

small and of minimul mass which is why Einstein states that the speed
of light is a maximum.
The article you point to shows charges or fields which must be carried
by something like particles as proven in other theories such as
Quantum theory.
Fields and waves book by Ramo etc constantly * lean on boundary laws
thru out there book and boundary laws clearly state the relationship
of static particles to equations relative to radiation.
If we are to refer to waves then accelleration demands mass so we need
a connection between waves and mass.

Try thinking in terms of fields and charges.

Assuming it is a wave that impinges on a Faraday cage we then have to
determine what half a charge comes about so that the charge cancels
and thus reverts to a time varying current. Again another puzzle!

A puzzle because you apply your misconceptions BEFORE first
understanding what is there.

Anyway the article that you point to shows a point charge which is
certainly not a wave which would be represented by a line of the
length used in top band.

Only because you interpret it that way. The article does not mention
point charge as causing the behavior, externally applied fields are
mentioned.

As far as penetration goes the mass involved is always of the same
mass and ikt is only the charge that varies in frequency as shown by
the radius of spin in helical form of the charge.Thus again we have to
find a connection * between wavelength and charge.Another obstical.....
If you can point out why one cannot use boundary rules so that
particles are recognised as the carriers of charge the same as with
Quantum theory I would be very gratified.

Gauss' laws refer to flux and do not require carriers of charge to exist.

None of the group excepting

newcomers such as your self has provided proof of the inelligability
of my approach so I am forced to explore other facets
of radiation to determine why my aproach is in error.

A lot of that has to do with your inability to communicate adequately.

I apologise for not being clear in the subject that creats problems
for newcomers such as yourself but to re iterate the discussion which
has been going on for years *would be quite a hardship. However if as
a newcomer you can supply why static particles cannot be associated
with propergation you would be doing something different to the group
that are relying on zero facts and replacing it with insult and spam.

If you are trying to present a new concept, then it is up to you to show
why, and that, it is right. Do that in a clear convincing way, with the
appropriate math, and you might foster a worthwhile discussion.

The wrong way to do this is throw a half-baked idea out and expect
others to accept it. You'll never prove a point that way.

Thanks for responding in a sensible way *.
I would like to point out in
addition that existing antenna programs with optimizer based on
Maxwells equations rely very heavily on the maintenance of equilibrium
which is the foundation of my aproach which includes particles and
certainly not waves.

Which of these antenna programs have you analyzed to the level to make
this statement? Have you looked at the source code of the programs?

If we are going to throw out such programs we surely must know why
before we take such a step when the presence of particles appear to be
in the majority of aproaches.

Why throw out the programs? Using waves is perfectly correct and
adequate for them.

Waves provide an adequate model for propagation. Particles may be
adequate at the quantum level. Both are ways to describe something.
Neither may adequately describe thing in all cases. They are models for
what happens. As long as the models are applied appropriately, there is
no problem. Applying a model inappropriately is bound to cause problems.

Best regards
Art Unwin.......KB9MZ.....xg

snip



How do you expect us to know what you are really talking about?
I am fully aware that I am not clear with my questions but I have to
live with that.
The point is that I am still trying to find out why the group does not
accept the extension of a static field in equilibrium cannot be
connected to Maxwells equations when adding a time varying field a
train of thought covered by boundary rules that are used in many
places.

That is solely because YOU can't describe your concepts adequately.
Putting "+t" on both sides of an equation does not necessarily lead to
anything meaningful. IF you were to describe your thoughts adequately,
perhaps someone would show you where you make errors.

If we accept the above then we have agreement with

Ok so you are not interested in a debate. I thought that as a newby
you might just be a little uncomfortable with the idea of using
Quantum theory if you desire particles or to use classical physics if
you desire waves. Obviously it is very difficult to accept change.
Any way thanks for your response and the technical data you supplied
for all to digest.
Regards
Art

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Art Unwin wrote:

Ok so you are not interested in a debate. I thought that as a newby
you might just be a little uncomfortable with the idea of using
Quantum theory if you desire particles or to use classical physics if
you desire waves. Obviously it is very difficult to accept change.
Any way thanks for your response and the technical data you supplied
for all to digest.
Regards
Art

Art,
You seem to be the one avoiding a discussion. When the conversation does
not go your way, you call it quits.

I do my part in responding to your points and pose some questions of my own.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Art Unwin wrote:

Ok so you are not interested in a debate. I thought that as a newby
you might just be a little uncomfortable with the idea of using
Quantum theory if you desire particles or to use classical physics if
you desire waves. Obviously it is very difficult to accept change.
Any way thanks for your response and the technical data you supplied
for all to digest.
Regards
Art

Art,
You seem to be the one avoiding a discussion. When the conversation does
not go your way, you call it quits.

I do my part in responding to your points and pose some questions of my own.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 6:42*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Ok so you are not interested in a debate. I thought that as a newby
you might just be a little uncomfortable with the idea of using
Quantum theory if you desire particles or to use classical physics if
you desire waves. Obviously it is very difficult to accept change.
Any way thanks for your response and the technical data you supplied
for all to digest.
Regards
Art

Art,
You seem to be the one avoiding a discussion. When the conversation does
not go your way, you call it quits.

I do my part in responding to your points and pose some questions of my own.

Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal. This is
in opposition to what the books say.
My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal. I supplied what I
believe supports the idea but nothing can be considered "proof" to
those who oppose change. If computer programs support retaining
equilibrium at all times then that is an independent result. If
Quantum physics chooses
particles over waves again that is an independent result which
questions conventional judgement. To accelerate a charge in the form
of a wave is un explainable in present science.Nor is the division of
same explainable with respect to the Faraday cage,
To provide an accelleration mass is a must but how a wave provides
such is stated no where. All of these in my mind questions the
validity of using boundary laws for which one
must also reflect equilibrium i.e. is it illegal? Why is it illegal?
It does follow the laws of Newton therefore Newtons laws are at
risk.Yes we are talking about the movement of flux
but movement requires the addition of time. So again the salient point
in this debate is the
addition of a time varying field to an arbitrary boundary containing
static particles deviate from the requirement of equilibrium in all
laws. Namely all statistics are placed on one side
of an equation that equals zero is a specific requirement. "Equal"
really means "equal" and not close enough for horse shoes.
For any sort of debate this central question must be resolved at the
beginning or there is no debate. Resolving this allows for progress
into other areas all of which depends on the above question. If nobody
can demonstrate why it is illegal then proof or truth is not
attainable. If we cannot debate technicalities of radiation then the
group is left to exchanging insults and spam or poll counting

Regards
Art

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 3:25 pm, Bill wrote:
On Mar 21, 4:59 pm, joe wrote:



If it is this
article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, (MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

What does the book point to, waves or particles? We all have plenty of
books and all cannot agree on the subject on radiation! In other words
they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsered by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerety in challenging
their position.In addition they stated that it is not possible outside
the physcics spectrum to challenge anything which thus puts all in the
spectrum of crackpots. Dr Davis of MIT provided the mathematics
that confirmed the presense of particles, but mathematics was not
considered a reputable answer compared to the majority argument that
the mathematical aproach was illegal.
So waves hold the majority in the books but by its very presence all
understanding of radiation has been stymied for the last hundred
years by the resistance to change without any accumpanying facts and
where physicists refuse to review to re examine what they state is now
"cast in stone." New books are written every year via plagarisation
for personal profit where the professor orders purchase of such books
for his pay off. Not one has come out with a review of radiation and
why progress has been stymied. And that goes for Radcom and QST who
have no real interest in advancing the hobby of its members.
Regards
Art

Art,

The double slit experiment clearly points to particles or photons. The slits
are very narrow (otherwise the experiments don't work) and the wave like
properties are caused by the interaction of the particles with the atoms in
the walls of the slit as they pass through. The slit is modulating the
particles if you like.

We know that individual particles are involved because they can be counted
one by one through a detector.
We know that wave like properties are involved because of the effects
observed on a screen placed behind a diffraction grid.

The observed properties are due to influence exerted on the particles as
they pass through the diffraction grid by the atomic structure of the grid
itself. Unless the experiment were carried out at absolute zero, the atoms
in the walls of the slit are vibrating and must influence the photon as it
passes through.

At absolute zero, nothing would be moving, including the photon, so the
experiment collapses at this point.

Photons are particles that display wave like behaviour under particular
conditions.

Mike g0uli

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 7:38*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 3:25 pm, Bill wrote:



On Mar 21, 4:59 pm, joe wrote:

If it is this
article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, (MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

What does the book point to, waves or particles? We all have plenty of
books and all cannot agree on the subject on radiation! In other words
they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsered by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerety in challenging
their position.In addition they stated that it is not possible outside
the physcics spectrum to challenge anything which thus puts all in the
spectrum of crackpots. Dr Davis of MIT provided the mathematics
that confirmed the presense of particles, but mathematics was not
considered a reputable answer compared to the majority argument that
the mathematical aproach was illegal.
So waves hold the majority in the books but by its very presence all
understanding of radiation has been *stymied for the last hundred
years by the resistance to change without any accumpanying facts and
where physicists refuse to review to re examine what they state is now
"cast in stone." New books are written every year via plagarisation
for personal profit where the professor orders purchase of such books
for his pay off. Not one has come out with a review of radiation and
why progress has been stymied. And that goes for Radcom and QST who
have no real interest in advancing the hobby of its members.
Regards
Art

Art,

The double slit experiment clearly points to particles or photons. The slits
are very narrow (otherwise the experiments don't work) and the wave like
properties are caused by the interaction of the particles with the atoms in
the walls of the slit as they pass through. The slit is modulating the
particles if you like.

We know that individual particles are involved because they can be counted
one by one through a detector.
We know that wave like properties are involved because of the effects
observed on a screen placed behind a diffraction grid.

The observed properties are due to influence exerted on the particles as
they pass through the diffraction grid by the atomic structure of the grid
itself. Unless the experiment were carried out at absolute zero, the atoms
in the walls of the slit are vibrating and must influence the photon as it
passes through.

At absolute zero, nothing would be moving, including the photon, so the
experiment collapses at this point.

Photons are particles that display wave like behaviour under particular
conditions.

Mike g0uli

I totally agree. Many things have attributes that other things have
but humans say that if it has a tail like a dog then it is a dog!
History shows that the interpretations ascertained from this
experiment was expanded to provide data to conclusavly say that
radiation" is" a accellerated wave and that is carved in stone i.e.
conclusive by physicists who made that descision without over sight
from another discipline.Cast in stone is a finality for physicists
who time after time dtate that their manipulation of mathematics prove
the existence of another particle that is predictable but we have just
not found it!
Now the shoe is on another foot, I have to provide an alternative PLUS
prove it where others don't have to.
To respond I used EXISTING LAWS and the mathematics that represent
them. Gauss stated his law as a measure of "an instant" in time
recognising that flux is mobile where at any "instant" of time the
boundary was in equilibrium. So I added a length of time where a time
varying field was added. All this being in cgs units. When the units
were changed to be the same as Maxwells equations (MKS) they showed
that they were one and the same which cemented the position of
particles as being present in the makings of radiation.
I am using common mathematics with established accepted laws and
nothing more but I am being asked to prove its legality which is
beyond reason.This establishes some consistency in the use of both
classical and other strains of physics that when applied to the same
problem also provides the same answer. What more can be said? Articles
now declare that interpretations made years ago are not as we thought,
but it is to late now for change as decisions in physics are the
result of polls and not reality.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 8:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:38*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Mar 21, 3:25 pm, Bill wrote:

On Mar 21, 4:59 pm, joe wrote:

If it is this
article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, (MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek....

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek....

What does the book point to, waves or particles? We all have plenty of
books and all cannot agree on the subject on radiation! In other words
they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsered by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerety in challenging
their position.In addition they stated that it is not possible outside
the physcics spectrum to challenge anything which thus puts all in the
spectrum of crackpots. Dr Davis of MIT provided the mathematics
that confirmed the presense of particles, but mathematics was not
considered a reputable answer compared to the majority argument that
the mathematical aproach was illegal.
So waves hold the majority in the books but by its very presence all
understanding of radiation has been *stymied for the last hundred
years by the resistance to change without any accumpanying facts and
where physicists refuse to review to re examine what they state is now
"cast in stone." New books are written every year via plagarisation
for personal profit where the professor orders purchase of such books
for his pay off. Not one has come out with a review of radiation and
why progress has been stymied. And that goes for Radcom and QST who
have no real interest in advancing the hobby of its members.
Regards
Art

Art,

The double slit experiment clearly points to particles or photons. The slits
are very narrow (otherwise the experiments don't work) and the wave like
properties are caused by the interaction of the particles with the atoms in
the walls of the slit as they pass through. The slit is modulating the
particles if you like.

We know that individual particles are involved because they can be counted
one by one through a detector.
We know that wave like properties are involved because of the effects
observed on a screen placed behind a diffraction grid.

The observed properties are due to influence exerted on the particles as
they pass through the diffraction grid by the atomic structure of the grid
itself. Unless the experiment were carried out at absolute zero, the atoms
in the walls of the slit are vibrating and must influence the photon as it
passes through.

At absolute zero, nothing would be moving, including the photon, so the
experiment collapses at this point.

Photons are particles that display wave like behaviour under particular
conditions.

Mike g0uli

I totally agree. Many things have attributes that other things have
but humans say that if it has a tail like a dog then it is a dog!
History shows that the interpretations ascertained from this
experiment was expanded to provide *data to conclusavly say that
radiation" is" a accellerated wave and that is carved in stone i.e.
conclusive by physicists who made that descision without over sight
from another discipline.Cast in stone is a finality for physicists
who time after time dtate that their manipulation of mathematics prove
the existence of another particle that is predictable but we have just
not found it!
Now the shoe is on another foot, I have to provide an alternative PLUS
prove it where others don't have to.
To respond I used *EXISTING LAWS and the mathematics that represent
them. Gauss stated his law as a measure of "an instant" in time
recognising that flux is mobile where at any "instant" of time the
boundary was in equilibrium. So I added a length of time where a time
varying *field was added. All this being in cgs units. When the units
were changed to be the same as Maxwells equations (MKS) they showed
that they were one and the same which cemented the position of
particles as being present in the makings of radiation.
I am using common mathematics with established accepted laws and
nothing more but I am being asked to prove its legality which is
beyond reason.This establishes some consistency in the use of both
classical and other strains of physics that when applied to the same
problem also provides the same answer. What more can be said? Articles
now declare that interpretations made years ago are not as we thought,
but it is to late now for change as decisions in physics are the
result of polls and not reality.

As I run through some other physics books I see situations that abound
where a static field is made dynamic! It just doesn't make sense that
hams who consider themselves as experts with respect to antennas can
now suddenly declare that it is now deemed illegal
I suppose with respect to free speech one can say anything if they do
not care about their credability of being an expert.This is not just a
single ham but the majority of the hams
commenting on this group. If a poll is taken then hams have proved
them selves to be in the right and truly expert.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 22, 2:25*am, Art Unwin wrote:

As I run through some other physics books I see situations that abound
where a static field is made dynamic! It just doesn't make sense that
hams who consider themselves as experts with respect to antennas can
now suddenly declare that it is now deemed illegal
I suppose with respect to free speech one can say anything if they do
not care about their credability of being an expert.This is not just a
single ham but the majority of the hams
commenting on this group. If a poll is taken then hams have proved
them selves to be in the right and truly expert.

What fraction of the ham population is on r.r.a.a. do you think?

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 8:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

What does the book point to, waves or particles?

Look for yourself.

they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsored by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerity in challenging
their position

You are such a martyr. My guess is that you were banned from a
moderated forum because you made a nuisance of yourself. But your will
always be able to come to r.r.a.a. and be as absurd as you care to be.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 10:19*pm, Bill wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:25*am, Art Unwin wrote:



As I run through some other physics books I see situations that abound
where a static field is made dynamic! It just doesn't make sense that
hams who consider themselves as experts with respect to antennas can
now suddenly declare that it is now deemed illegal
I suppose with respect to free speech one can say anything if they do
not care about their credability of being an expert.This is not just a
single ham but the majority of the hams
commenting on this group. If a poll is taken then hams have proved
them selves to be in the right and truly expert.

What fraction of the ham population is on r.r.a.a. do you think?

Odd question but I will respond to prevent bad thoughts.
For this group this discusion has lasted several years and only two
agree that the theory is worth reviewing. On qrz there have been two
threads which has in the order of 8000 + views including a posting by
Tom W8 TI which pleased me as he always follows up with a full
analysis that destroys various claimes put forward. This time he has
failed to place his resonings in writing so basically he is agreeing
with other hams that it is a fraud. Nobody on QRZ expressed any
confidence in my theory and again nobody provided anything to back up
the opinion of fraud. If one went by poll within the amateur group
there would be rousing agreement that it all is a fraud both in
thought and action. If one was judged in terms of debate then it is
two to zero as they were the only ones to express "why" it was worth
consideration. So If hams are the experts they think they are they do
not have to prove their competance and just go by the polls.
As an aside Jeffries who is the antenna adviser for a U.S.magazine
stated that static had no part in ac or dc circuits. I believe he is a
professor or teacher at a university in Sussex U.K. having held
similar positions in the U.S.
I believe that the above answers are the truth as I see it and what
you asked for.
Kotar has been the most critical and I leave it for you to review the
archives for his postings explaining his position which appears to be
par for the course on this newsgroup.
Regards
Art
Regards
Art

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 10:35*pm, Bill wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek....

What does the book point to, waves or particles?

Look for yourself.

they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsored by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerity in challenging
their position

You are such a martyr. *My guess is that you were banned from a
moderated forum because you made a nuisance of yourself. But your will
always be able to come to r.r.a.a. and be as absurd as you care to be.

No I was banned for not conforming with known physics which was
considered arguementive. I was given the option of showing an
understanding and aproval of known physics for reinstatement. I
supplied such information to you as a sample of the truth regardless
whether it was in my favour or not knowing full well one might seize
upon it
to my detriment.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 20, 11:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
*Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. ...* The books state for a mesh shield the perforations
should be less than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes
the results obtained by the box experiment! ... Where has my intuition
gone wrong in opposing the books?

If reality will help shape your intuition, then you may be interested
in this paste-up from an IEEE paper linked below.

Note that the spacing of the conductors in the mesh forming these
cavities is much greater than your intuition says is required "to
create a blocking effect."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...y_Radiator.gif

RF

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 22, 6:20*am, Richard Fry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:49*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

*Intuition tells me that when using a perforated plate the lower the
frequency then the smaller the perforations in the shield to create a
blocking effect. ...* The books state for a mesh shield the perforations
should be less than 1/10 of a WL which on the surface opposes
the results obtained by *the box experiment! ... Where has my intuition
gone wrong in opposing the books?

If reality will help shape your intuition, then you may be interested
in this paste-up from an IEEE paper linked below.

Note that the spacing of the conductors in the mesh forming these
cavities is much greater than your intuition says is required "to
create a blocking effect."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...Cavity_Radiato...

RF

Interesting. thank you.It would appear that they are using approx .1
lamda sections but the beam pattern appears to be what is expected
other than the differential between E and H
as shown on my page.
Ofcourse it doesnt show how it is fed which can make a lot of
difference.The size of the squares really determine whether the
currents slides across the surface or follow a paths per a normal
radiator. I certainly would not feel comfortable using such openings
as protection against lightning.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 22, 8:23*am, Art Unwin wrote:
I certainly would not feel comfortable using such openings
as protection against lightning.

Real comfort is produced by real (proven) knowledge, not intuition.

The purposes of the gridded cavity are (1) to isolate its radiating
elements from coupling into the nearby supporting tower, (2) to
minimize coupling into adjacent cavities on the same level and those
installed above and below, (3) to minimize the windload of the
installed antenna compared to using solid cavities, and (4) to create
predictable, unit radiation patterns that can be used together to
generate specific, directional radiation patterns for the array that
meet given specifications in the azimuth and elevation planes.

The cavity, and all of its components operate nearly at earth ground
potential in the low r-f spectrum, where induced energy from nearby
lightning strikes is greatest.

Arrays of these cavity antennas have been in operation at the top of
the Sears Tower in Chicago and many other "tall-tower" sites for more
than 25 years now, with zero lightning damage.

RF

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 7:38*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 3:25 pm, Bill wrote:



On Mar 21, 4:59 pm, joe wrote:

If it is this
article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, (MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

What does the book point to, waves or particles? We all have plenty of
books and all cannot agree on the subject on radiation! In other words
they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsered by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerety in challenging
their position.In addition they stated that it is not possible outside
the physcics spectrum to challenge anything which thus puts all in the
spectrum of crackpots. Dr Davis of MIT provided the mathematics
that confirmed the presense of particles, but mathematics was not
considered a reputable answer compared to the majority argument that
the mathematical aproach was illegal.
So waves hold the majority in the books but by its very presence all
understanding of radiation has been *stymied for the last hundred
years by the resistance to change without any accumpanying facts and
where physicists refuse to review to re examine what they state is now
"cast in stone." New books are written every year via plagarisation
for personal profit where the professor orders purchase of such books
for his pay off. Not one has come out with a review of radiation and
why progress has been stymied. And that goes for Radcom and QST who
have no real interest in advancing the hobby of its members.
Regards
Art

Art,

The double slit experiment clearly points to particles or photons. The slits
are very narrow (otherwise the experiments don't work) and the wave like
properties are caused by the interaction of the particles with the atoms in
the walls of the slit as they pass through. The slit is modulating the
particles if you like.

We know that individual particles are involved because they can be counted
one by one through a detector.
We know that wave like properties are involved because of the effects
observed on a screen placed behind a diffraction grid.

The observed properties are due to influence exerted on the particles as
they pass through the diffraction grid by the atomic structure of the grid
itself. Unless the experiment were carried out at absolute zero, the atoms
in the walls of the slit are vibrating and must influence the photon as it
passes through.

At absolute zero, nothing would be moving, including the photon, so the
experiment collapses at this point.

Photons are particles that display wave like behaviour under particular
conditions.

Mike g0uli

Interesting video on the double slit experiment which reverses "waves"
back to "particles".
I wonder how long before the books are changed back to the thoughts of
Newton and possibly my proof with respect to particles? Its a shame
that the professors on the physics
forum are still in a pattern against change or just not up to date in
the absence of a new up to date book. Of course it will take much
longer for the ham community to reconcile themselves and it may take a
new generation to adjust.
And a bit longer for QST and Radcom as they have a back log of
articles with respect to soldering connections on coax, morse code key
design and push pull tubes used in radios!
I am extremely happy regarding the helical spin shown which I
determined as a scalar reaction to the rotation of the Earth as it
gives more credability to my position that it is one of the two forces
that make up the Standard Model.( see unwin antenna page) as well as
the notion of tipped verticles to reflect same
http://vimeo.com/3747866
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ........xg

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Richard Fry wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:23 am, Art Unwin wrote:
I certainly would not feel comfortable using such openings
as protection against lightning.

Real comfort is produced by real (proven) knowledge, not intuition.

The purposes of the gridded cavity are (1) to isolate its radiating
elements from coupling into the nearby supporting tower, (2) to
minimize coupling into adjacent cavities on the same level and those
installed above and below, (3) to minimize the windload of the
installed antenna compared to using solid cavities, and (4) to create
predictable, unit radiation patterns that can be used together to
generate specific, directional radiation patterns for the array that
meet given specifications in the azimuth and elevation planes.

The cavity, and all of its components operate nearly at earth ground
potential in the low r-f spectrum, where induced energy from nearby
lightning strikes is greatest.

Arrays of these cavity antennas have been in operation at the top of
the Sears Tower in Chicago and many other "tall-tower" sites for more
than 25 years now, with zero lightning damage.

RF

Do you have any web references to gridded cavity antennas?

My intuition says your statements are correct. It is likely not wrong.

Thanks.

tom
K0TAR

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 22, 8:56*pm, tom wrote:

Do you have any web references to gridded cavity antennas?

A good source is the paper from which I posted a few "fair use" clips,
and was published in the Sept 1979 edition of the IEEE Transactions on
Broadcasting. I'm not aware of any web link to it, and it is a
copyrighted work. But probably your local public library would be
able to access it through inter-library services, and provide you with
a copy.

This design was developed by Harris Corporation, and has evolved/
improved over the years especially in the crossed-dipole element used
to excite the cavity.

The design is now available through several manufacturers. The first
link below shows a description of it from the 2004 catalog of
Dielectric Communications, who bought the design from Harris. The
picture shows an array of 12 layers of 3-around cavities that was
built by Harris as a master FM antenna (9 stations) for the Senior
Road Tower Group in Houston.

The second link below shows the measured axial ratio for an
omnidirectional version of the antenna.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...vity_Array.gif

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...xial_Ratio.gif

RF

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 23, 6:31*am, Richard Fry wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:56*pm, tom wrote:

A good source is the paper from which I posted a few "fair use" clips,
and was published in the Sept 1979 edition of the IEEE Transactions on
Broadcasting.

CORRECTION, that was the Sept 1976 edition.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Richard Fry wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:56 pm, tom wrote:
Do you have any web references to gridded cavity antennas?

A good source is the paper from which I posted a few "fair use" clips,
and was published in the Sept 1979 edition of the IEEE Transactions on
Broadcasting. I'm not aware of any web link to it, and it is a
copyrighted work. But probably your local public library would be
able to access it through inter-library services, and provide you with
a copy.

This design was developed by Harris Corporation, and has evolved/
improved over the years especially in the crossed-dipole element used
to excite the cavity.

The design is now available through several manufacturers. The first
link below shows a description of it from the 2004 catalog of
Dielectric Communications, who bought the design from Harris. The
picture shows an array of 12 layers of 3-around cavities that was
built by Harris as a master FM antenna (9 stations) for the Senior
Road Tower Group in Houston.

The second link below shows the measured axial ratio for an
omnidirectional version of the antenna.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...vity_Array.gif

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...xial_Ratio.gif

RF

Thanks. Gives me plenty to start from.

tom
K0TAR

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 21, 7:38*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 3:25 pm, Bill wrote:



On Mar 21, 4:59 pm, joe wrote:

If it is this
article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, (MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

What does the book point to, waves or particles? We all have plenty of
books and all cannot agree on the subject on radiation! In other words
they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsered by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerety in challenging
their position.In addition they stated that it is not possible outside
the physcics spectrum to challenge anything which thus puts all in the
spectrum of crackpots. Dr Davis of MIT provided the mathematics
that confirmed the presense of particles, but mathematics was not
considered a reputable answer compared to the majority argument that
the mathematical aproach was illegal.
So waves hold the majority in the books but by its very presence all
understanding of radiation has been *stymied for the last hundred
years by the resistance to change without any accumpanying facts and
where physicists refuse to review to re examine what they state is now
"cast in stone." New books are written every year via plagarisation
for personal profit where the professor orders purchase of such books
for his pay off. Not one has come out with a review of radiation and
why progress has been stymied. And that goes for Radcom and QST who
have no real interest in advancing the hobby of its members.
Regards
Art

Art,

The double slit experiment clearly points to particles or photons. The slits
are very narrow (otherwise the experiments don't work) and the wave like
properties are caused by the interaction of the particles with the atoms in
the walls of the slit as they pass through. The slit is modulating the
particles if you like.

We know that individual particles are involved because they can be counted
one by one through a detector.
We know that wave like properties are involved because of the effects
observed on a screen placed behind a diffraction grid.

The observed properties are due to influence exerted on the particles as
they pass through the diffraction grid by the atomic structure of the grid
itself. Unless the experiment were carried out at absolute zero, the atoms
in the walls of the slit are vibrating and must influence the photon as it
passes through.

At absolute zero, nothing would be moving, including the photon, so the
experiment collapses at this point.

Photons are particles that display wave like behaviour under particular
conditions.

Mike g0uli

Mike you know and I know that the double split experiment was
interpreted as evidence
that radiation is created by a wave and not a particle as in quantum
mechanics. This being in opposition to the thinking of the masters of
the day . The descision made went far beyond the duallity stage when
they made this interporetation. Now it is called the infamaos
experiment as they have now identified the initial observations as a
result of particles. To my knoweledge there is no books available for
University students to get up to date as physicist are reluctant to
change or to admit errors. Until this is done students will
continue to remember what the books state to pass their examinations.
A long time has passed since the time of Maxwell and the books still
force Universities to stick with fields and waves where nobody can
procede in the search for truth as we do not know the mass
of the waves or the energy mechanism of the revolving door of such.
This group who have been taught to memorize what a professor states
and not to question by first principles of what is stated then they
all know what to encircle at exam time from a to c which is what the
professor said and has nothing to do with reality. It is not
surprising that Einstein failed in his quest to describe the Standard
Model as he was building on the shoulders of those that preceded him
on the assumption that they were free from error. Now with computers
we have a tremedous amount of formulas that are built on errors which
leaves huge gaps in understanding and the number of constants and
predicted particles to make sense of all these manufactured formulae
based on error. It is not surprizing that physicists are getting away
with all this tripe by stating that all those outside the discipline
are all crackpots as they have had no instruction on their version of
the discipline of mathematics. Now we are all paying for the multi
million CERN project that is intended to break the smallest particle
known to obtain a lesser mass so the speed of light can be exceeded.As
for the Higgs field
predicted by their wierd forms of mathematics it will be found as a
constant squared divided by the mas of numourous unfound but predicted
particles!

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.

your whole concept is malformed. if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.

which books. quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.

then you better start hunting for a new theory. i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 23, 6:34*pm, Dave wrote:
Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.

which books. *quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. *i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.

then you better start hunting for a new theory. *i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

As i said before, if you do not accept the laws of physics then we
cannot debate physics
Probably the best thing to happen for both of us! You can take a horse
to the water trough
but you can't make it drink. Especially when it puts his arse to the
front and lets loose with hot air.Your last statement shows all who
you are and what you are. Free speech can have its price.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:34 pm, Dave wrote:
Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.
your whole concept is malformed. if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.
which books. quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.
then you better start hunting for a new theory. i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

As i said before, if you do not accept the laws of physics then we
cannot debate physics
Probably the best thing to happen for both of us! You can take a horse
to the water trough
but you can't make it drink. Especially when it puts his arse to the
front and lets loose with hot air.Your last statement shows all who
you are and what you are. Free speech can have its price.


Once again, you throw insults when the discussion does not go your way.
I'm not sure you even know who you replied to.

As far as folks not debating you, first present your position in a clear
way with the appropriate math and equations. Allow others to try to
understand your way of thinking. To date, you have not provided the kind
of detail necessary for the kind of debate you would like.

As I said before, just adding "+t" to an equation does not make it
right. If I've interpreted your position wrong, then it is because you
have not clearly expressed it.

The ball, as it has always been, is in your court.

It is not a matter of accepting the laws of physics. It is what you do
with/to them that may be the problem.

If you want to discuss physics, present your case the way those
knowledgeable in the field would do.

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On Mar 23, 7:46*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:34 pm, Dave wrote:
Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.
your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.
which books. *quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. *i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.
then you better start hunting for a new theory. *i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

As i said before, if you do not accept the laws of physics then we
cannot debate physics
Probably the best thing to happen for both of us! You can take a horse
to the water trough
but you can't make it drink. Especially when it puts his arse to the
front and lets loose with hot air.Your last statement shows all who
you are and what you are. Free speech can have its price.

Once again, you throw insults when the discussion does not go your way.
I'm not sure you even know who you replied to.

As far as folks not debating you, first present your position in a clear
way with the appropriate math and equations. Allow others to try to
understand your way of thinking. To date, you have not provided the kind
of detail necessary for the kind of debate you would like.

As I said before, just adding "+t" to an equation does not make it
right. If I've interpreted your position wrong, then it is because you
have not clearly expressed it.

The ball, as it has always been, is in your court.

It is not a matter of accepting the laws of physics. It is what you do
with/to them that may be the problem.

If you want to discuss physics, present your case the way those
knowledgeable in the field would do.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well you can discuss your ideas on physics with David. There are also
some on the group
who obviously understand classical physics. So you have a choice of a
sensible discussion
on physics as well as a discussion of your idea of physics. I await on
the side lines with interest to see what choice you make!

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
your whole concept is malformed. if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

Radiation penetration/absorbtion
 

On 3/23/2010 8:10 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 23, 7:46 pm, wrote:
If you want to discuss physics, present your case the way those
knowledgeable in the field would do.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well you can discuss your ideas on physics with David. There are also
some on the group
who obviously understand classical physics. So you have a choice of a
sensible discussion
on physics as well as a discussion of your idea of physics. I await on
the side lines with interest to see what choice you make!

And Art, as usual, waits on the side defined by fantasy.

tom
K0TAR