What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 19, 8:36 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons or like sound.
S*


mr. b. you and art should get together. i'm sure his vortices off the
ends of his over optimized dipole would work well with your sound
model of electromagnetics.

Sound model of electric waves is the oldest (XIX century). I am not young
but it is not mine.

he has forced the particles off the dipole
by making it superconductive so they should respond like perfectly
compressible sound carriers and since they are massless the sound will
travel at the speed of light. how perfect could that be! both new
theories

May be that the Art's is a new. The "like sound" is the oldest.

come together in one big never ending thread where we can all
read the bafflegab and have a big laugh behind your backs, or maybe
right in your faces. Sorry i've been a bit slow responding, i had a
nice trip to dayton, but didn't find any of the unwin antennas for
sale, or any sound driven dipoles out in the flea market either...

All dipoles are with the standing waves (like sound).

well, maybe next year, i'm sure you'll both be selling those new
superconductive longitudinal wave generating magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino hyperwave antennas at bargain basement prices
after everyone learns how bad they really are.

"Like sound " antennas are in sale for ages.
If Art's are or will be - I do not know. I am not an expert. (I have trouble
with understanding Art's idea - he is using very sophistcated terms).
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On May 21, 7:24*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 19, 8:36 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons or like sound.
S*

mr. b. you and art should get together. *i'm sure his vortices off the

ends of his over optimized dipole would work well with your sound
model of electromagnetics.

Sound model of electric waves is the oldest (XIX century). I am not young
but it is not mine.

he has forced the particles off the dipole

by making it superconductive so they should respond like perfectly
compressible sound carriers and since they are massless the sound will
travel at the speed of light. *how perfect could that be! *both new
theories

May be that the Art's is a new. The "like sound" is the oldest.

come together in one big never ending thread where we can all

read the bafflegab and have a big laugh behind your backs, or maybe
right in your faces. *Sorry i've been a bit slow responding, i had a
nice trip to dayton, but didn't find any of the unwin antennas for
sale, or any sound driven dipoles out in the flea market either...

All dipoles are with the standing waves (like sound).

well, maybe next year, i'm sure you'll both be selling those new

superconductive longitudinal wave generating magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino hyperwave antennas at bargain basement prices
after everyone learns how bad they really are.

"Like sound " antennas are in sale for ages.
If Art's are or will be - I do not know. I am not an expert. (I have trouble
with understanding Art's idea - he is using very sophistcated terms).
S*

show me the equations for modeling a dipole radiation pattern using
sound in free space, be sure to account for polarization.

What exactly is radio
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

(I have trouble
with understanding Art's idea - he is using very sophistcated terms).


There is a clue in there. Use of the terms does not indicate
correctness, just useage.

While for any given case of Art's antennas, whether the theory, or the
actual described antennas - I just don't understand the theory, and the
antennas, which are usually explainable by other, less abstruse and more
well known methods.

In at least one case, the coil on the end of a mast 160 meter antenna,
well, it's a tuned circuit on the end of a stick. No doubt it works in
similar fashion to the other antennas of the same ilk, relying on feed
line radiation. Nothing new, and no need for new theory in the case that
the old one describes it well.

In any event, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Art
is not willing to provide, we are supposed to believe him based on it
being him.


Wrong-o-freaking-rama! Just about anything can be explained in some
fashion to just about anyone, and the onus is on the one trying to
explain. I've never had a problem understanding anything else the
experts have offered. That brings us back to my first sentence.

- Mike -

What exactly is radio
 

On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:19:32 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

An ordinary proof would be more than adequate. It is the
"extraordinary" proof (aka radiating particles on diamagnetic rods
enclosed in the equilibrium of a faraday shield to induce the
Luxembourg effect) that is probably the surest indicator of deception.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 21, 7:24 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons or like sound.
S*

"Like sound " antennas are in sale for ages.
If Art's are or will be - I do not know. I am not an expert. (I have
trouble
with understanding Art's idea - he is using very sophistcated terms).
S*

show me the equations for modeling a dipole radiation pattern using
sound in free space, be sure to account for polarization.

I have something like this:
http://perg.phys.ksu.edu:80/vqmorig/...lit/vq_mws.htm

See also 1864 in:
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours...omagnetism.pdf

Transversal wves have no sense. The equations are usefull for teaching the
math.

S*

What exactly is radio
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:19:32 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

An ordinary proof would be more than adequate.


I suppose you are right there Richard. Its just that we don't often get
the chance to use extraordinary twice in one sentence very often, I just
got carried away.



It is the
"extraordinary" proof (aka radiating particles on diamagnetic rods
enclosed in the equilibrium of a faraday shield to induce the
Luxembourg effect) that is probably the surest indicator of deception.

I was thinking his explanations might involve the Stockholm effect.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

What exactly is radio
 

On May 21, 5:48*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 21, 7:24 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons or like sound.
S*

"Like sound " antennas are in sale for ages.
If Art's are or will be - I do not know. I am not an expert. (I have
trouble
with understanding Art's idea - he is using very sophistcated terms).
S*
show me the equations for modeling a dipole radiation pattern using

sound in free space, be sure to account for polarization.

I have something like this:http://perg.phys.ksu.edu:80/vqmorig/...ave/Slit/vq_mw...

See also 1864 in:http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours.../Lecture_Notes...

Transversal wves have no sense. The equations are usefull for teaching the
math.

S*

right, read this carefully from that 1864 note: 'the requirements of
his mechanical model keep him from finding the correct boundary
conditions, so he never does this calculation'. This is just one of
the basic shortcomings of using a mechanical analogy, you can not
satisfy the electric and magnetic field boundary conditions that the
final version of his equations handle properly. while some basic
effects like the interference patterns can be duplicated for both
longitudinal and transverse waves, they are not interchangeable in all
cases and trying to do so will only lead to absurd things like
electrons jumping off antennas or the need for an aether to transmit
em waves.

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 21, 5:48 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons or like sound.
S*

"Like sound " antennas are in sale for ages.
If Art's are or will be - I do not know. I am not an expert. (I have
trouble
with understanding Art's idea - he is using very sophistcated terms).
S*
show me the equations for modeling a dipole radiation pattern using

sound in free space, be sure to account for polarization.

I have something like
this:http://perg.phys.ksu.edu:80/vqmorig/...ave/Slit/vq_mw...

See also 1864
in:http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours.../Lecture_Notes...

Transversal wves have no sense. The equations are usefull for teaching
the
math.

right, read this carefully from that 1864 note: 'the requirements of
his mechanical model keep him from finding the correct boundary
conditions, so he never does this calculation'.

This is just one of
the basic shortcomings of using a mechanical analogy, you can not
satisfy the electric and magnetic field boundary conditions that the
final version of his equations handle properly.

In science area are scientists and teachers.
All scientists know that electricity, magnetism and gravity are the same.
Teachers know that the three must be taught seperately. Are you a student?

while some basic
effects like the interference patterns can be duplicated for both
longitudinal and transverse waves, they are not interchangeable in all
cases and trying to do so will only lead to absurd things like
electrons jumping off antennas or the need for an aether to transmit
em waves.

Maxwell's model is for the aether. But with the two substances: magnetism
and electricity.

Your antennas have the blunt tips to prevent the "jumping off ".
The alternate voltage in the ends create the oscilation of electrons in
neighbourhood .

Electrons in space are detected. So they are the aether.
Do not you hear on Dirac electron see?
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On May 22, 6:33*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 21, 5:48 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons or like sound.
S*

"Like sound " antennas are in sale for ages.
If Art's are or will be - I do not know. I am not an expert. (I have
trouble
with understanding Art's idea - he is using very sophistcated terms).
S*
show me the equations for modeling a dipole radiation pattern using

sound in free space, be sure to account for polarization.

I have something like
this:http://perg.phys.ksu.edu:80/vqmorig/...ave/Slit/vq_mw...

See also 1864
in:http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours.../Lecture_Notes...

Transversal wves have no sense. The equations are usefull for teaching
the
math.
right, read this carefully from that 1864 note: *'the requirements of

his mechanical model keep him from finding the correct boundary
conditions, so he never does this calculation'.

This is just one of

the basic shortcomings of using a mechanical analogy, you can not
satisfy the electric and magnetic field boundary conditions that the
final version of his equations handle properly.

In science area are scientists and teachers.
All scientists know that electricity, magnetism and gravity are the same.
Teachers know that the three must be taught seperately. Are you a student?

while some basic

effects like the interference patterns can be duplicated for both
longitudinal and transverse waves, they are not interchangeable in all
cases and trying to do so will only lead to absurd things like
electrons jumping off antennas or the need for an aether to transmit
em waves.

Maxwell's model is for the aether. But with the two substances: magnetism
and electricity.

Your antennas have the blunt tips to prevent the "jumping off ".
The alternate voltage in the ends create the oscilation of electrons in
neighbourhood .

Electrons in space are detected. So they are the aether.
Do not you hear on Dirac electron see?
S*

no, i am not a student, i am an engineer by training and scientist by
title. where in maxwell's equations is there an aether?

not all antennas have blunt tips, and electron's don't just 'jump off'
an antenna.

no, just because there are electrons in space doesn't make that an
aether. there are electrons flowing in vacuum tubes, that is a
current, not an aether to carry em waves.

What exactly is radio
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
In science area are scientists and teachers.
All scientists know that electricity, magnetism and gravity are the same.
S*



I can demonstrate that electrically charged items can repel each other.
I can demonstrate how magnets can repel each other.

How do I demonstrate the repelling effect of gravity?