What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 5, 8:52 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Wiki wrote: "The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric
field
and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary
charges,
and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); "

an electric field can also be created by a changing magnetic field...
and a magnetic field by a changing electric field... no charges
needed.

In Maxwell's displacement current were charges (electricity).
In the space no charged bodies.

But what produce very slow charge?

a charge is a charge, it can neither be created nor destroyed.... well
except maybe by matter-anti-matter annihilation. charged particles
can move at any speed from 0 to c, nothing special about speeds.

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce the
electric field. Why not?

Next Wiki weote: "From a classical perspective, the electromagnetic field
can be regarded as a smooth, continuous field, propagated in a wavelike
manner ;"

It is important to know that Maxwell's waves are rotational (oscillating
magnetic whirl).

no they aren't... at least not all of them. maxwells equations are
just as well satisfied by linearly polarized (magnetic AND electric
field) waves.

Maxwell's waves are transversal. It means that something oscillate around
the axis of rotation.
Linear polarization means thet the rotating oscillations are in the one
plane.

Alternate electric field also propagate in a wavelike manner. But here to
and fro (no rotations).

if the magnetic field is rotating then the electric field also
rotates. they always go together.

In Maxwell's Hypothesis.

The fundamental question: Are radio waves a simple electric waves or the
very sophisticated Maxwell's waves?

ALL radio waves can be described by maxwell's equations, both simple
linear polarized ones and circularly polarized ones.

Wiki wrote: " FM radio
The term "circular polarization" is often used erroneously to describe mixed
polarity signals used mostly in FM radio (87.5 to 108.0 MHz), where a
vertical and a horizontal component are propagated simultaneously by a
single or a combined array."

It seems that radio waves are the electric waves.
If yes, the light is also longitudinal.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"Art Unwin" wrote
...

The fundamental question: Are radio waves a simple electric waves or
the
very sophisticated Maxwell's waves?

ALL radio waves can be described by maxwell's equations, both simple
linear polarized ones and circularly polarized ones.

The fundamental question is really how can we describe this "wave".? A
wave of what "water",
A wave of "water" traveling towards a beach.
Is it water we are really trying to describe or what?
Water has a "skin" on its surface , a skin that encasulates it like a
bag , container or a boundary!

Water waves are described by Stokes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift


Nothing is clear when describing a "wave" with respect to physics, as
it is just a "F" word to substitute an unexplainable in a psuedo
description
There is no agreement what so ever as to what a "wave" is so there
cannot exist a description of what radio "IS", "IS"!. Physicists
acknowledge that radio is some thing that is unexplanable leaving just
hams to fill in the unexplainable about radio and to deny the
explanations made by others.
What we do have is a string of mathematical equations all of which
interlock which are a result
of observation and seamingly reasonable deductions. Maxwell deduced b
y examination of units used that a portion of his formula was also a
mathematical explanation of elevation and acceleration but no
description of what!

Maxwell did it. Maxwell described it in English. The equations wrote
Heaviside.

A physicists
named Gauss who provided a lot of Maxwells tools
used Newtons laws to establish boundary laws where it can be seen that
mathematically a clump of static particles in equilibrium could be
made
dynamic by adding a time varying field while retaining equilibrium
meshes with Maxwells equations on radiation. So who on earth descided
to interject "waves" into the discussion and why?

The dynamic particles are waves. The Gauss time varying field is the
longitudinal wave.

And what experiment was performed that dictated its inclusion in the
subject of radio or radiation that has put a screaming halt to a
sustainable explanation of same for more than a hundred years
where other dreams have come to fruition by utelizing the human brain.
Is it the ham population
that is responsible for the lack of advances in the advancement of
science by denying the inclusion of particles as the basic matter
involved in elevation and acceleration (displacement) as implied by
Maxwell's equations, preferring instead to use 'water' and 'waves' to
describe the science to the non initiated.

The water and waves are usefull in schools. Everybody can see.
Light, radio waves and sound waves are analogous in the all details.
Sound waves and radio waves are not visible but many experiment was done.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On May 6, 8:25*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

you mangled the replies so badly that i couldn't even follow what you
were saying. light and radio waves are the same thing, as are gamma,
infra red, x-ray, etc... all the exact same phenomena explained very
well by maxwell's equations. scientists for 100 years have been
unable to come up with anything better, you aren't going to by your
misguided assertions that have no mathematics or experimental evidence
behind them.

sound waves and water waves are VERY different things. while some of
the equations take the same form because they share sinusoidal
repetition properties, the underlying physics is VERY different. you
have to abandon the analogies you learned in elementary school and
learn the proper physics to understand why electromagnetic waves are
not like sound or water... start with this, why can you polarize light
or radio waves but not sound waves?

What exactly is radio
 

On May 6, 8:00*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 3, 7:25 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Radio waves from the dipole are polarized. Does it mean that light is
emitted by a dipoles?

sure, why not? *but polarized waves can be emitted from other things
also.



We can shield the one end of the dipole.

no you can't.

A whip antennas on a car is not such?

no, the other half of the dipole is the body of the car itself.




Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?

because they do, its well measured and accurately described in the
equations.

Are the measured and the calculated from the equations in agreement?

yes, to within many, many decimal places... if they did not agree to
within the limits of measurement then someone would have had to make a
new theory to explain the difference.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 6, 12:58*am, Art Unwin wrote:
The fundamental question: Are radio waves a simple electric waves or the
very sophisticated Maxwell's waves?

ALL radio waves can be described by maxwell's equations, both simple
linear polarized ones and circularly polarized ones.

The fundamental question is really how can we describe this "wave".? A
wave of what "water",
A wave of "water" traveling towards a beach.
Is it water we are really trying to describe or what?
Water has a "skin" on its surface , a skin that encasulates it like a
bag , container or a boundary!
Nothing is clear when describing a "wave" with respect to physics, as
it is just a "F" word to substitute an unexplainable in a psuedo
description
There is no agreement what so ever as to what a "wave" is so there
cannot *exist a description of what radio "IS", "IS"!. Physicists
acknowledge that radio is some thing that is unexplanable leaving just
hams to fill in the unexplainable about radio and to deny the
explanations made by others.
What we do have is a string of mathematical equations all of which
interlock which are a result
of observation and seamingly reasonable deductions. Maxwell deduced b
y examination of units used that a portion of his formula was also a
mathematical explanation of elevation and acceleration but no
description of what! A physicists
named Gauss who provided a lot of Maxwells tools
used Newtons laws to establish boundary laws where it can be seen that
mathematically a clump of static particles in equilibrium could be
made
dynamic by adding a time varying field while retaining equilibrium
meshes with Maxwells equations on radiation. So who on earth descided
to interject "waves" into the discussion and why?
And what experiment was performed that dictated its inclusion in the
subject of radio or radiation that has put a screaming halt to a
sustainable explanation of same for more than a hundred years
where other dreams have come to fruition by utelizing the human brain.
Is it the ham population
that is responsible for the lack of advances in the advancement of
science by denying the inclusion of particles as the basic matter
involved in elevation and acceleration (displacement) as implied by
Maxwell's equations, preferring instead to use 'water' and 'waves' to
describe the science to the non initiated.

maxwell's equations do not describe particle motion, they describe
electric and magnetic fields and electromagnetic waves. as i just
tried to point out to mr. b, the elementary school analogy of water
waves to explain electromagnetic waves must be abandoned before you
can truly understand em waves.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 6, 5:07*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 6, 12:58*am, Art Unwin wrote:



The fundamental question: Are radio waves a simple electric waves or the
very sophisticated Maxwell's waves?

ALL radio waves can be described by maxwell's equations, both simple
linear polarized ones and circularly polarized ones.

The fundamental question is really how can we describe this "wave".? A
wave of what "water",
A wave of "water" traveling towards a beach.
Is it water we are really trying to describe or what?
Water has a "skin" on its surface , a skin that encasulates it like a
bag , container or a boundary!
Nothing is clear when describing a "wave" with respect to physics, as
it is just a "F" word to substitute an unexplainable in a psuedo
description
There is no agreement what so ever as to what a "wave" is so there
cannot *exist a description of what radio "IS", "IS"!. Physicists
acknowledge that radio is some thing that is unexplanable leaving just
hams to fill in the unexplainable about radio and to deny the
explanations made by others.
What we do have is a string of mathematical equations all of which
interlock which are a result
of observation and seamingly reasonable deductions. Maxwell deduced b
y examination of units used that a portion of his formula was also a
mathematical explanation of elevation and acceleration but no
description of what! A physicists
named Gauss who provided a lot of Maxwells tools
used Newtons laws to establish boundary laws where it can be seen that
mathematically a clump of static particles in equilibrium could be
made
dynamic by adding a time varying field while retaining equilibrium
meshes with Maxwells equations on radiation. So who on earth descided
to interject "waves" into the discussion and why?
And what experiment was performed that dictated its inclusion in the
subject of radio or radiation that has put a screaming halt to a
sustainable explanation of same for more than a hundred years
where other dreams have come to fruition by utelizing the human brain.
Is it the ham population
that is responsible for the lack of advances in the advancement of
science by denying the inclusion of particles as the basic matter
involved in elevation and acceleration (displacement) as implied by
Maxwell's equations, preferring instead to use 'water' and 'waves' to
describe the science to the non initiated.

maxwell's equations do not describe particle motion, they describe
electric and magnetic fields and electromagnetic waves. *as i just
tried to point out to mr. b, the elementary school analogy of water
waves to explain electromagnetic waves must be abandoned before you
can truly understand em waves.

I am happy about that but it doesn't help me to understand em waves or
where they are involved with Maxwell. It is inbuilt in physics that we
are accelerating a charge where acceleration demands
mass. But there is no continuation of explanation beyond that point.
Every theory since classical has broken down and we are now in the
superstring theory while at the same time trying to collide the
smallest particle on earth which determines the speed of light. You
definitely can not involve acceleration without mass, and gravity can
only be canceled by a reactionary vecto r being involved and you
cannot have a straight line trajectory without two vectors
representing gravity and its associated spin. Frankly, we should
start again using the basics of Newton as used by Maxwell
and then backtracking to the time of Einstein by supplying the
relationship of static and dynamic fields so that frausteration did
not drive us away from former progress in physics over the centuries
to invent particles without mass, anti particles and acceleration of
string which can take on the shape of a wave.
What startles me is the acceptance of computer programs based on
Maxwell which clearly show that the radiating member must have zero
resistance for maximum radiation. That radiation resistance implies
that of an encapsulating
substance which is elevated and accelerated by the action of
displacement current in a similar manner to scrap metal sorting yards.
Now I read that present particle science is retracting to the idea of
a single particle being the source of the standard model and where the
existing environment is creating the observences at any point in time
based on the existance of matter in all cases. It is time we reverted
back to the demands of equilibrium where an "equal" sign
addition to any equation demands that the addition
of all used in that equation must equal zero. Which is a staple of all
that is used by the human race over the centuries. Not one of many
theorems on radio have come to fruition with the use of integra ated
solutions to satisfy the whole. All we have are totally disconnected
imaginations spawned by using mathematical tricks of doubtful merit
with imaginary inventions to fill in the inevitable gaps.
We only have one tool that is solidly connected to equations of
maxwell and that is the computer programs with optimizer that adheres
solely to the stated equation together with adherence to equilibrium.
What better place exists to delve further into the Masters thoughts
rather than the manufacture of another theorem?

What exactly is radio
 

On 5/6/2010 7:15 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

I am happy about that but it doesn't help me to understand em waves or
where they are involved with Maxwell. It is inbuilt in physics that we
are accelerating a charge where acceleration demands
mass. But there is no continuation of explanation beyond that point.
Every theory since classical has broken down and we are now in the
superstring theory while at the same time trying to collide the
smallest particle on earth which determines the speed of light. You
definitely can not involve acceleration without mass, and gravity can
only be canceled by a reactionary vecto r being involved and you
cannot have a straight line trajectory without two vectors
representing gravity and its associated spin. Frankly, we should
start again using the basics of Newton as used by Maxwell
and then backtracking to the time of Einstein by supplying the
relationship of static and dynamic fields so that frausteration did
not drive us away from former progress in physics over the centuries
to invent particles without mass, anti particles and acceleration of
string which can take on the shape of a wave.
What startles me is the acceptance of computer programs based on
Maxwell which clearly show that the radiating member must have zero
resistance for maximum radiation. That radiation resistance implies
that of an encapsulating
substance which is elevated and accelerated by the action of
displacement current in a similar manner to scrap metal sorting yards.
Now I read that present particle science is retracting to the idea of
a single particle being the source of the standard model and where the
existing environment is creating the observences at any point in time
based on the existance of matter in all cases. It is time we reverted
back to the demands of equilibrium where an "equal" sign
addition to any equation demands that the addition
of all used in that equation must equal zero. Which is a staple of all
that is used by the human race over the centuries. Not one of many
theorems on radio have come to fruition with the use of integra ated
solutions to satisfy the whole. All we have are totally disconnected
imaginations spawned by using mathematical tricks of doubtful merit
with imaginary inventions to fill in the inevitable gaps.
We only have one tool that is solidly connected to equations of
maxwell and that is the computer programs with optimizer that adheres
solely to the stated equation together with adherence to equilibrium.
What better place exists to delve further into the Masters thoughts
rather than the manufacture of another theorem?

Time to start taking your meds again.

tom
K0TAR

What exactly is radio
 

On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce the
electric field. Why not?

Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

What exactly is radio
 

On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?

Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR


Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

tom
K0TAR

What exactly is radio
 

tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?

Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR


Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

tom
K0TAR

You were correct the first time.

Nothing with mass can attain light speed and it doesn't matter if it is
charged or not.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 6, 9:55*pm, wrote:
tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?

Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

tom
K0TAR

You were correct the first time.

Nothing with mass can attain light speed and it doesn't matter if it is
charged or not.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Wrong. Spin produces the charge.
Without spin you cannot achieve straight line trajectory as it will
surely tumble.
One must have the minumum mass possible to achieve the speed of light.
A neutrino which translates into " little one" is the smallest
particle known and thus can achieve the speed of light.
If a particle smaller with respect to mass than that is found then the
speed of light can obviously be exceeded. Einstein stated that the
speed of light cannot be exceeded!

What exactly is radio
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 6, 9:55Â*pm, wrote:
tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?

Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

tom
K0TAR

You were correct the first time.

Nothing with mass can attain light speed and it doesn't matter if it is
charged or not.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Wrong. Spin produces the charge.
Without spin you cannot achieve straight line trajectory as it will
surely tumble.
One must have the minumum mass possible to achieve the speed of light.
A neutrino which translates into " little one" is the smallest
particle known and thus can achieve the speed of light.
If a particle smaller with respect to mass than that is found then the
speed of light can obviously be exceeded. Einstein stated that the
speed of light cannot be exceeded!

Babbling gibberish.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 6, 8:00 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT"
...
On May 3, 7:25 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Radio waves from the dipole are polarized. Does it mean that light is
emitted by a dipoles?

sure, why not? but polarized waves can be emitted from other things
also.

We can shield the one end of the dipole.

no you can't.

A whip antennas on a car is not such?

no, the other half of the dipole is the body of the car itself.

Have you ever seen the dipole which one end is without a cap and the other
with the huge cap (the body of the car?
The body is rather a mirror for the monopole.

Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?

because they do, its well measured and accurately described in the
equations.

Are the measured and the calculated from the equations in agreement?

yes, to within many, many decimal places... if they did not agree to
within the limits of measurement then someone would have had to make a
new theory to explain the difference.

No such need. For the radio waves apply all knowledge for the acoustic
waves.
The monopole works like the Kundt's tube. The dipole like the two.
The directional pattern is the same for two loudspeakers like for the
dipole.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 6, 8:25 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

you mangled the replies so badly that i couldn't even follow what you
were saying. light and radio waves are the same thing, as are gamma,
infra red, x-ray, etc... all the exact same phenomena explained very
well by maxwell's equations. scientists for 100 years have been
unable to come up with anything better, you aren't going to by your
misguided assertions that have no mathematics or experimental evidence
behind them.

Maxwell's electricity is incompressible.
Todays electron gas is compressible. Behind them is mathematics (plasma
physics) and experimental evidence.

sound waves and water waves are VERY different things. while some of
the equations take the same form because they share sinusoidal
repetition properties,

Sinusoidal means harmonics. Real waves are not harmonics. They are rather
the chain of the solitons.

the underlying physics is VERY different. you
have to abandon the analogies you learned in elementary school and
learn the proper physics to understand why electromagnetic waves are
not like sound or water.

Sound and water waves are the real waves and such have always the two
components (longitudinal and transversal).
Maxwell' em waves are pure transversal. Maxwell wrote that it is a
proposition.

.. start with this, why can you polarize light or radio waves but not sound
waves?

I did it. Radio waves and sound waves have the same directional patterns for
the same numbers, configurations (and phases).
The two waves emitted from the dipole (ACOUSTIC OR ELECTRIC) are
"polarized". You can experimentally determine the plane in which the dipole
is.

The same is with more sources.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"tom" wrote
t...
On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?

Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR


Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

What do you think. Is the electron a charged particle?

Maxwell assumed that the electricity is massles and incompressible.
He would be right if the electron is a charged particle.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On May 7, 12:15*am, Art Unwin wrote:
What better place exists to delve further into the Masters thoughts
rather than the manufacture of another theorem?

To justify another theorem you must do a couple things:
1. predict something that is not currently predicted.
2. explain all known phenomenon at least as well as existing laws/
theories.

In order to do both of those you must be quantitative. Provide exact
equations that combine what is predicted by maxwell with your magical
levitating colored bosons from the sun, show the link to the earth
rotation precisely so the tipping effect can be calculated and proven
or disproved by an experiment, explain why diamagnetic materials must
be used and what happens differently if you use paramagnetic or
ferromagnetic materials in a form that can be measured... but these
all require equations, not handwaving general statements about the big
bang and your magical equilibrium.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 7, 7:49*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 6, 8:00 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



"K1TTT"
...
On May 3, 7:25 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Radio waves from the dipole are polarized. Does it mean that light is
emitted by a dipoles?

sure, why not? but polarized waves can be emitted from other things
also.

We can shield the one end of the dipole.

no you can't.

A whip antennas on a car is not such?
no, the other half of the dipole is the body of the car itself.

Have you ever seen the dipole which one end is without a cap and the other
with the huge cap (the body of the car?
The body is rather a mirror for the monopole.



Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?

because they do, its well measured and accurately described in the
equations.

Are the measured and the calculated from the equations in agreement?
yes, to within many, many decimal places... if they did not agree to

within the limits of measurement then someone would have had to make a
new theory to explain the difference.

No such need. For the radio waves apply all knowledge for the acoustic
waves.
The monopole works like the Kundt's tube. The dipole like the two.
The directional pattern is the same for two loudspeakers like for the
dipole.
S*

wrongo buckaroo. there is no such thing as a monopole... when you
have a feedline are there not always 2 conductors? search for some
basic circuit theory about current and voltage sources, you will see
they always have 2 ports. there must always be a return path that is
the other half of the dipole, even if you can't see it as such. all
antennas derive from the infinitesimal dipole which when degenerated
even father can be represented as a single oscillating charge. it
always goes back and forth or around in circles to create the
propagating wave, if it only moves in one direction as it would have
to in a monopole there is no wave only a simple field.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 7, 8:35*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"tom" se.net...

On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?

Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

What do you think. Is the electron a charged particle?

Maxwell assumed that the electricity is massles and incompressible.
He would be right if the electron is a charged particle.
S*

have you ever measured the charge on an electron? that is a standard
college physics lab experiment, measure charge and mass and compare to
text book values. a very simple experiment actually, look up the
millikan oil drop experiment and give it a try. maybe you could get
together with art and go through a few of those simple experiments to
gain a better understanding of basic physics.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 7, 8:26*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
I did it. Radio waves and sound waves have the same directional patterns for
the same numbers, configurations (and phases).
The two waves emitted from the dipole (ACOUSTIC OR ELECTRIC) are
"polarized". You can experimentally determine the plane in which the dipole
is.

The same is with more sources.
S*

they may have the same patterns for some cases, that is why they are
used in lower grades, to keep the explanations of waves simple for
those who don't have the mathematical background to understand the
full detail of it. but pattern does not show polarization. by
matching an interference pattern you are not showing how a wave is
polarized, only that superposition principles work for both types of
waves. show me an experiment where a sound wave is polarized, that
one i would like to see. you might want to start with a couple of
these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave
http://universe-review.ca/R12-03-wave.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/polarization-of-waves
http://www.isvr.soton.ac.uk/spcg/Tut...ther-light.htm

What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 7, 7:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Radio waves from the dipole are polarized. Does it mean that light
is
emitted by a dipoles?

sure, why not? but polarized waves can be emitted from other things
also.

We can shield the one end of the dipole.

no you can't.

A whip antennas on a car is not such?
no, the other half of the dipole is the body of the car itself.

Have you ever seen the dipole which one end is without a cap and the
other
with the huge cap (the body of the car?
The body is rather a mirror for the monopole.


Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?

because they do, its well measured and accurately described in the
equations.

Are the measured and the calculated from the equations in agreement?
yes, to within many, many decimal places... if they did not agree to

within the limits of measurement then someone would have had to make a
new theory to explain the difference.

No such need. For the radio waves apply all knowledge for the acoustic
waves.
The monopole works like the Kundt's tube. The dipole like the two.
The directional pattern is the same for two loudspeakers like for the
dipole.
S*

wrongo buckaroo. there is no such thing as a monopole... when you
have a feedline are there not always 2 conductors? search for some
basic circuit theory about current and voltage sources, you will see
they always have 2 ports. there must always be a return path that is
the other half of the dipole, even if you can't see it as such. all
antennas derive from the infinitesimal dipole which when degenerated
even father can be represented as a single oscillating charge. it
always goes back and forth or around in circles to create the
propagating wave,

Yes. But one end of the dipole may have the better conditions to propagate.

if it only moves in one direction as it would have
to in a monopole there is no wave only a simple field.

I am writing about a dipole with one end visible and the second shielded.

In nature is always as you wrote. The both ands are always "visible".

Light is always directional. Radio waves can be omnidirectional.
Of course light is emitted by many dipoles. Radio waves by halve, one, two
(circular polarity) or many (phase radar).
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 7, 8:26 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
I did it. Radio waves and sound waves have the same directional patterns
for
the same numbers, configurations (and phases).
The two waves emitted from the dipole (ACOUSTIC OR ELECTRIC) are
"polarized". You can experimentally determine the plane in which the
dipole
is.

The same is with more sources.
S*

they may have the same patterns for some cases, that is why they are
used in lower grades, to keep the explanations of waves simple for
those who don't have the mathematical background to understand the
full detail of it. but pattern does not show polarization. by
matching an interference pattern you are not showing how a wave is
polarized,

You assume that radio wave is transversal. Such are polarised. But such are
only in Maxwell's Hypothesis.

Radio waves from the ends of the dipole are coupled. The both are in one
plane.

Radio wave from one end is spherical.

only that superposition principles work for both types of
waves. show me an experiment where a sound wave is polarized,

Sound wave is not polarised. Sound waves from "dipole" is.

that one i would like to see.
you might want to start with a couple of
these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave
http://universe-review.ca/R12-03-wave.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/polarization-of-waves
http://www.isvr.soton.ac.uk/spcg/Tut...ther-light.htm

In above no directional pattern for sound dipoles.

"Polarized" means directional. Are all radio waves directional?
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 7, 8:35 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"tom"
se.net...

On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?

Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

What do you think. Is the electron a charged particle?

Maxwell assumed that the electricity is massles and incompressible.
He would be right if the electron is a charged particle.
S*

have you ever measured the charge on an electron? that is a standard
college physics lab experiment, measure charge and mass and compare to
text book values. a very simple experiment actually, look up the
millikan oil drop experiment and give it a try. maybe you could get
together with art and go through a few of those simple experiments to
gain a better understanding of basic physics.

Almost all Authors of tekstbooks write that it was a big mistake of Maxwell
when he assumed that electricity is massles and incompressible. They wrote
it after discovery of electron.

Now we assume that the electron gas is the electricity.
What do you think. Is the electron a charged particle or pure electricity?
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On May 8, 7:19*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 7, 8:26 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

I did it. Radio waves and sound waves have the same directional patterns
for
the same numbers, configurations (and phases).
The two waves emitted from the dipole (ACOUSTIC OR ELECTRIC) are
"polarized". You can experimentally determine the plane in which the
dipole
is.

The same is with more sources.
S*
they may have the same patterns for some cases, that is why they are

used in lower grades, to keep the explanations of waves simple for
those who don't have the mathematical background to understand the
full detail of it. *but pattern does not show polarization. *by
matching an interference pattern you are not showing how a wave is
polarized,

You assume that radio wave is transversal. Such are polarised. But such are
only in Maxwell's Hypothesis.

Radio waves from the ends of the *dipole are coupled. The both are in one
plane.

Radio wave from one end is spherical.

only that superposition principles work for both types of

waves. *show me an experiment where a sound wave is polarized,

Sound wave is not polarised. Sound waves from "dipole" is.

that one i would like to see.
you might want to start with a couple of

these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavehtt...rial_files/Web...

In above no directional pattern for sound dipoles.

"Polarized" means directional. Are all radio waves directional?
S*

this discussion is worthless until you go back to school and learn the
basics.

What exactly is radio
 

On 5/8/2010 2:04 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Yes. But one end of the dipole may have the better conditions to propagate.

if it only moves in one direction as it would have
to in a monopole there is no wave only a simple field.

I am writing about a dipole with one end visible and the second shielded.

In nature is always as you wrote. The both ands are always "visible".

Light is always directional. Radio waves can be omnidirectional.
Of course light is emitted by many dipoles. Radio waves by halve, one, two
(circular polarity) or many (phase radar).
S*

Astonishing understanding of the subject.

tom
K0TAR

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 8, 7:19 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

You assume that radio wave is transversal. Such are polarised. But such
are
only in Maxwell's Hypothesis.

Radio waves from the ends of the dipole are coupled. The both are in one
plane.

Radio wave from one end is spherical.

only that superposition principles work for both types of

waves. show me an experiment where a sound wave is polarized,

Sound wave is not polarised. Sound waves from "dipole" is.

that one i would like to see.
you might want to start with a couple of

these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavehtt...rial_files/Web...

In above no directional pattern for sound dipoles.

"Polarized" means directional. Are all radio waves directional?
S*

this discussion is worthless until you go back to school and learn the
basics.

In textbooks must be all theories.
In one chapter light (and radio waves) is like photons, in the next chapter
like EM waves and in next like acoustics.

EM is the only example of transversal waves. So it must be in teaching
program.

But we try to help Peter. He wrote: "I begin to appreciate a comment made by
a fellow radio amateur and
technician that antenna theory was 15% science and 85% black magic! "

It seems that you are sure that radio waves are transversal. It is
impossible to help you (Maxwell was full of doubts).
May be that somebody consider the Acoustic analogy and the black magic
disappear for him.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"tom" wrote
t...
On 5/8/2010 2:04 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Yes. But one end of the dipole may have the better conditions to
propagate.

if it only moves in one direction as it would have
to in a monopole there is no wave only a simple field.

I am writing about a dipole with one end visible and the second
shielded.

In nature is always as you wrote. The both ands are always "visible".

Light is always directional. Radio waves can be omnidirectional.
Of course light is emitted by many dipoles. Radio waves by halve, one,
two
(circular polarity) or many (phase radar).
S*

Astonishing understanding of the subject.

Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*

tom
K0TAR

What exactly is radio
 

On May 9, 10:14*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT" ...
On May 8, 7:19 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





You assume that radio wave is transversal. Such are polarised. But such
are
only in Maxwell's Hypothesis.

Radio waves from the ends of the dipole are coupled. The both are in one
plane.

Radio wave from one end is spherical.

only that superposition principles work for both types of

waves. show me an experiment where a sound wave is polarized,

Sound wave is not polarised. Sound waves from "dipole" is.

that one i would like to see.
you might want to start with a couple of

these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavehtt....ca/R12-03-wav......

In above no directional pattern for sound dipoles.

"Polarized" means directional. Are all radio waves directional?
S*
this discussion is worthless until you go back to school and learn the

basics.

In textbooks must be all theories.
In one chapter light (and radio waves) is like photons, in the next chapter
like EM waves and in next like acoustics.

EM is the only example of transversal waves. So it must be in teaching
program.

But we try to help Peter. He wrote: "I begin to appreciate a comment made by
a fellow radio amateur and
technician that antenna theory was 15% science and 85% black magic! "

It seems that you are sure that radio waves are transversal. It is
impossible to help you (Maxwell was full of doubts).
May be that somebody consider the Acoustic analogy and the black magic
disappear for him.
S*

maxwell may have been full of doubts, and Einstein wasn't able to see
the experiments that have proven his theories, but we have seen them
well tested and accepted over the years. if you think that 85% is
black magic then you have lots of learning to do to fill in that 85%
gap in your knowledge.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 9, 10:30*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"tom" se.net...



On 5/8/2010 2:04 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Yes. But one end of the dipole may have the better conditions to
propagate.

if it only moves in one direction as it would have
to in a monopole there is no wave only a simple field.

I am writing about a dipole with one end *visible and the second
shielded.

In nature is always as you wrote. The both ands are always "visible".

Light is always directional. Radio waves can be omnidirectional.
Of course light is emitted by many dipoles. Radio waves by halve, one,
two
(circular polarity) or many (phase radar).
S*

Astonishing understanding of the subject.

Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*

tom
K0TAR

light can be coherent, what do you think lasers are?

What exactly is radio
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*

Babble.

Any electromagnetic radiation, from radio to gamma rays, can be coherent or
not; it depends on how it is generated.

Did you get tired of being called a babbling, drooling, idiot on the
sci.physics.* groups with your rambling nonsense and now you are trying your
luck in the amateur radio groups?

You were an idiot when you were posting to sci.physics.* and you are still
an idiot now that you are posting to rec.radio.amateur.*.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 9, 10:14 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In textbooks must be all theories.
In one chapter light (and radio waves) is like photons, in the next
chapter
like EM waves and in next like acoustics.

EM is the only example of transversal waves. So it must be in teaching
program.

But we try to help Peter. He wrote: "I begin to appreciate a comment made
by
a fellow radio amateur and
technician that antenna theory was 15% science and 85% black magic! "

It seems that you are sure that radio waves are transversal. It is
impossible to help you (Maxwell was full of doubts).
May be that somebody consider the Acoustic analogy and the black magic
disappear for him.
S*

maxwell may have been full of doubts, and Einstein wasn't able to see
the experiments that have proven his theories,

Maxwell did EM, Einstein did the photons and somebody else the acoustic
analogy.

but we have seen them
well tested and accepted over the years.

All of that three ( all three are in textbooks) are well tested and accepted
but only in some extend. May be that after some time only one will be fully
accepted. Which one do you designate?

if you think that 85% is
black magic then you have lots of learning to do to fill in that 85% gap in
your knowledge.

I designate the acoustic analogy and do not see any gaps.
They who designate EM or the photons are in constant trouble for more than
100 years.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 9, 10:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"tom"
se.net...



On 5/8/2010 2:04 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Yes. But one end of the dipole may have the better conditions to
propagate.

if it only moves in one direction as it would have
to in a monopole there is no wave only a simple field.

I am writing about a dipole with one end visible and the second
shielded.

In nature is always as you wrote. The both ands are always "visible".

Light is always directional. Radio waves can be omnidirectional.
Of course light is emitted by many dipoles. Radio waves by halve, one,
two
(circular polarity) or many (phase radar).
S*

Astonishing understanding of the subject.

Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*

light can be coherent, what do you think lasers are?

"The most monochromatic sources are usually lasers; such high
monochromaticity implies long coherence lengths (up to hundreds of meters).
For example, a stabilized helium-neon laser can produce light with coherence
lengths in excess of 5 m. Not all lasers are monochromatic, however (e.g.
for a mode-locked Ti-sapphire laser, ?? ? 2 nm - 70 nm). LEDs are
characterized by ?? ? 50 nm, and tungsten filament lights exhibit ?? ? 600
nm, so these sources have shorter coherence times than the most
monochromatic lasers". From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)

Up to now light is not coherent. But in future who knows.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

U¿ytkownik napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to
analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*

Babble.

Any electromagnetic radiation, from radio to gamma rays, can be coherent
or
not; it depends on how it is generated.

Did you get tired of being called a babbling, drooling, idiot on the
sci.physics.* groups with your rambling nonsense and now you are trying
your
luck in the amateur radio groups?

You were an idiot when you were posting to sci.physics.* and you are still
an idiot now that you are posting to rec.radio.amateur.*.

The term EM waves is traditional.
Light, sound and radio waves are simmilar. It is stated in all textbooks.
Are they wrote by idiots?
Look what wrote another idiot:
"This article is about general theory and electromagnetic phased array. For
the ultrasonic and medical imaging application, see phased array
ultrasonics. For the optical application, see phased-array optics." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array

Do you know even one example where Acoustic analogy do not work?
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

U?ytkownik napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to
analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*

Babble.

Any electromagnetic radiation, from radio to gamma rays, can be coherent
or
not; it depends on how it is generated.

Did you get tired of being called a babbling, drooling, idiot on the
sci.physics.* groups with your rambling nonsense and now you are trying
your
luck in the amateur radio groups?

You were an idiot when you were posting to sci.physics.* and you are still
an idiot now that you are posting to rec.radio.amateur.*.

The term EM waves is traditional.
Light, sound and radio waves are simmilar. It is stated in all textbooks.

Having some similar charactristics does not mean EM and sound are the
same thing.

You are still a babbing idiot.

snip
Do you know even one example where Acoustic analogy do not work?
S*

All of them once you get past the grade school stage.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 9, 7:00*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 9, 10:14 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





In textbooks must be all theories.
In one chapter light (and radio waves) is like photons, in the next
chapter
like EM waves and in next like acoustics.

EM is the only example of transversal waves. So it must be in teaching
program.

But we try to help Peter. He wrote: "I begin to appreciate a comment made
by
a fellow radio amateur and
technician that antenna theory was 15% science and 85% black magic! "

It seems that you are sure that radio waves are transversal. It is
impossible to help you (Maxwell was full of doubts).
May be that somebody consider the Acoustic analogy and the black magic
disappear for him.
S*
maxwell may have been full of doubts, and Einstein wasn't able to see

the experiments that have proven his theories,

Maxwell did EM, Einstein did the photons and somebody else the acoustic
analogy.

but we have seen them

well tested and accepted over the years.

All of that three ( all three are in textbooks) are well tested and accepted
but only in some extend. May be that after some time only one will be fully
accepted. Which one do you designate?

if you think that 85% is

black magic then you have lots of learning to do to fill in that 85% gap in
your knowledge.

I designate the acoustic analogy and do not see any gaps.
They who designate EM or the photons are in constant trouble for more than
100 years.
S*

you may designate away, that doesn't make it any more correct. the
only things that the acoustic, water, and em radiation has in common
is the sinusoidal characteristics and that superposition works.
because of those two you can get similar interference patterns from
all 3 types of waves. that doesn't mean the underlying physics are
the same.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 9, 7:13*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 9, 10:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



"tom"
se.net...

On 5/8/2010 2:04 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Yes. But one end of the dipole may have the better conditions to
propagate.

if it only moves in one direction as it would have
to in a monopole there is no wave only a simple field.

I am writing about a dipole with one end visible and the second
shielded.

In nature is always as you wrote. The both ands are always "visible"..

Light is always directional. Radio waves can be omnidirectional.
Of course light is emitted by many dipoles. Radio waves by halve, one,
two
(circular polarity) or many (phase radar).
S*

Astonishing understanding of the subject.

Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*
light can be coherent, what do you think lasers are?

"The most monochromatic sources are usually lasers; such high
monochromaticity implies long coherence lengths (up to hundreds of meters).
For example, a stabilized helium-neon laser can produce light with coherence
lengths in excess of 5 m. Not all lasers are monochromatic, however (e.g.
for a mode-locked Ti-sapphire laser, ?? ? 2 nm - 70 nm). LEDs are
characterized by ?? ? 50 nm, and tungsten filament lights exhibit ?? ? 600
nm, so these sources have shorter coherence times than the most
monochromatic lasers". From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)

Up to now light is not coherent. But in future who knows.
S*

if you are going to be that critical then its hard to call radio waves
coherent either. every transmitter has some drift, phase noise, or
harmonic content that distorts the pure sine waveform one way or
another making them incoherent in longer periods, the same way there
is noise and incoherence in lasers... nothing is perfect.

What exactly is radio
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:


Do you know even one example where Acoustic analogy do not work?
S*



A high school experiment using a bell jar, alarm clock and a vacuum pump.

What exactly is radio
 

"joe" wrote ...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:


Do you know even one example where Acoustic analogy do not work?
S*

A high school experiment using a bell jar, alarm clock and a vacuum pump.

Jim wrote: " Having some similar charactristics does not mean EM and sound
are the
same thing."

They are not the same. Sound propagate in gases, liquids and solids
Electric waves in the "aether".

But the source of sound is an increase of the pressure.
The source of electric waves is an increase of the voltage.

The voltage increases at the ends of a dipole.

The electric waves and sound propagate in metal wires, but with different
speeds.
Are electric waves in a wire also transversal?
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 9, 7:00 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In textbooks must be all theories.
In one chapter light (and radio waves) is like photons, in the next
chapter
like EM waves and in next like acoustics.

EM is the only example of transversal waves. So it must be in teaching
program.

But we try to help Peter. He wrote: "I begin to appreciate a comment
made
by
a fellow radio amateur and
technician that antenna theory was 15% science and 85% black magic! "

It seems that you are sure that radio waves are transversal. It is
impossible to help you (Maxwell was full of doubts).
May be that somebody consider the Acoustic analogy and the black magic
disappear for him.
S*
maxwell may have been full of doubts, and Einstein wasn't able to see

the experiments that have proven his theories,

Maxwell did EM, Einstein did the photons and somebody else the acoustic
analogy.

but we have seen them

well tested and accepted over the years.

All of that three ( all three are in textbooks) are well tested and
accepted
but only in some extend. May be that after some time only one will be
fully
accepted. Which one do you designate?

if you think that 85% is

black magic then you have lots of learning to do to fill in that 85% gap
in
your knowledge.

I designate the acoustic analogy and do not see any gaps.
They who designate EM or the photons are in constant trouble for more than
100 years.
S*

you may designate away, that doesn't make it any more correct. the
only things that the acoustic, water, and em radiation has in common
is the sinusoidal characteristics and that superposition works.
because of those two you can get similar interference patterns from
all 3 types of waves. that doesn't mean the underlying physics are
the same.

Oscillating compressible gas create .the standing waves in the tube with the
closed end.
The oscillating compressible electron gas create the standing waves in open
circuit (antenna).
Is not the same physics?
S*

What exactly is radio
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


They are not the same. Sound propagate in gases, liquids and solids
Electric waves in the "aether".

There is no "aether".

snip babbling nonsense


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio