What exactly is radio
 

Jim Lux wrote:
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.



I think you need to clarify.. zero "rest mass"..

Nope, "mass" unqualified refers to rest mass and qualifiers only become
necessary if talking about other than rest mass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 10, 7:41*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"joe" ....

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*

yes.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 10, 8:03*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
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*

no

What exactly is radio
 

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


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

There is no "aether".

Years ago Ludvig Lorenz said that in the space is enough mater to propagate
the electric waves.
Now we say "interstellar matter". But Aether is still in use.

"The interstellar gas consists partly of neutral atoms and molecules, as
well as charged particles, such as ions and electrons."
From: http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
S*

What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 10, 7:41 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

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?

yes.

" As the wave propagates along the line, it is accompanied by currents which
flow longitudinally in the conductors".
From: http://www.answers.com/topic/electro...e-transmission

In reality no pure transversal waves. Such are only possible in the math.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


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

There is no "aether".

Years ago Ludvig Lorenz said that in the space is enough mater to propagate
the electric waves.
Now we say "interstellar matter". But Aether is still in use.

"The interstellar gas consists partly of neutral atoms and molecules, as
well as charged particles, such as ions and electrons."
From: http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
S*

Babbling nonsense.


http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf

No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287

No Lorentz violation


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio
 

wrote ...
"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


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

There is no "aether".

Years ago Ludvig Lorenz said that in the space is enough mater to
propagate
the electric waves.
Now we say "interstellar matter". But Aether is still in use.

"The interstellar gas consists partly of neutral atoms and molecules, as
well as charged particles, such as ions and electrons."
From: http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
S*

Babbling nonsense.


http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf

No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287

No Lorentz violation

"Not to be confused with Hendrik Lorentz or Edward Norton Lorenz" From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Lorenz

Behaviour of light is in our time quite clear:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/K...%20Light .pdf
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

wrote ...
"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


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

There is no "aether".

Years ago Ludvig Lorenz said that in the space is enough mater to
propagate
the electric waves.
Now we say "interstellar matter". But Aether is still in use.

"The interstellar gas consists partly of neutral atoms and molecules, as
well as charged particles, such as ions and electrons."
From: http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
S*

Babbling nonsense.


http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf

No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287

No Lorentz violation

"Not to be confused with Hendrik Lorentz or Edward Norton Lorenz" From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Lorenz

Behaviour of light is in our time quite clear:

To most people, but obiously not you.




--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio
 

wrote ...
"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:


Behaviour of light is in our time quite clear:

To most people, but obiously not you.

" Ions and electrons in space are usually intimately mixed, in a "soup"
containing equal amounts of positive and negative charges. Such a mixture is
known as a plasma ". From:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Ielect.html

This "soup" rotate with the Sun. Each planetary systems are the vortex (or
planetary disc).
Light (and radio waves) travel in this rotating soup. For this reason the
MMX result is "null" in the orbital direction. But it is not null in the
direction of Earth rotating (Michelson-Gale experiment). The evidences on
that was collected by Kelly:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/K...%20Light .pdf

S*

What exactly is radio
 

"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

wrote ...
"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:


Behaviour of light is in our time quite clear:

To most people, but obiously not you.

" Ions and electrons in space are usually intimately mixed, in a "soup"
containing equal amounts of positive and negative charges. Such a mixture is
known as a plasma ". From:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Ielect.html

This "soup" rotate with the Sun. Each planetary systems are the vortex (or
planetary disc).
Light (and radio waves) travel in this rotating soup. For this reason the
MMX result is "null" in the orbital direction. But it is not null in the
direction of Earth rotating (Michelson-Gale experiment). The evidences on
that was collected by Kelly:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/K...%20Light .pdf

S*

Babbling, irrelevant gibberish complete with references to a kook web site.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 11, 4:26*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 10, 7:41 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



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?
yes.

" As the wave propagates along the line, it is accompanied by currents which
flow longitudinally in the conductors".
From:http://www.answers.com/topic/electro...e-transmission

In reality no pure transversal waves. Such are only possible in the math.
S*

but as dilbert's trolls know, numbers create reality, not the other
way around. if you can't describe it in a formula, it can't exist.
and yes, while the current moves longitudinally along the wire, the
fields are transverse. look at the formulas, they apply to the wire
also. they just get more complex because you have to take into
account the boundry conditions at the interface between the wire and
what is around it... something that freshman physics and calculus are
not enough to handle.

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 11, 4:26 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

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?
yes.

" As the wave propagates along the line, it is accompanied by currents
which
flow longitudinally in the conductors".
From:http://www.answers.com/topic/electro...e-transmission

In reality no pure transversal waves. Such are only possible in the math.
S*

but as dilbert's trolls know, numbers create reality, not the other
way around. if you can't describe it in a formula, it can't exist.
and yes, while the current moves longitudinally along the wire, the
fields are transverse. look at the formulas, they apply to the wire
also. they just get more complex because you have to take into
account the boundry conditions at the interface between the wire and
what is around it... something that freshman physics and calculus are
not enough to handle.

You all time about Maxwell's hypothesis. But Maxwell wrote: "The general
type of a stress is not suitable as a representation of a magnetic force,
because a line of magnetic force has direction and intensity, but has no
third qufility indicating any difference between the sides of the line,
which would be analogous to that observed in the case of polarized
light[2]." From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force

To explain the light polarization Maxwell assumed that the current in the
wire create the magnetic whirl around the wire (The same for displacement
current in the space).

Maxwell's waves are polarized. Now you know that the dipoles are "polarized"
(not waves).
S*

What exactly is radio
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

You all time about Maxwell's hypothesis. But Maxwell wrote: "The general
type of a stress is not suitable as a representation of a magnetic force,
because a line of magnetic force has direction and intensity, but has no
third qufility indicating any difference between the sides of the line,
which would be analogous to that observed in the case of polarized
light[2]." From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force

Yeah, and Maxwell was talking about magnetic fields, not electromagnetic
fields, in that sentence.

To explain the light polarization Maxwell assumed that the current in the
wire create the magnetic whirl around the wire (The same for displacement
current in the space).

Gibberish.

Maxwell's waves are polarized. Now you know that the dipoles are "polarized"
(not waves).
S*

More gibberish.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

What exactly is radio
 

On May 13, 3:29*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 11, 4:26 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:







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?
yes.

" As the wave propagates along the line, it is accompanied by currents
which
flow longitudinally in the conductors".
From:http://www.answers.com/topic/electro...e-transmission

In reality no pure transversal waves. Such are only possible in the math.
S*
but as dilbert's trolls know, numbers create reality, not the other

way around. *if you can't describe it in a formula, it can't exist.
and yes, while the current moves longitudinally along the wire, the
fields are transverse. *look at the formulas, they apply to the wire
also. *they just get more complex because you have to take into
account the boundry conditions at the interface between the wire and
what is around it... something that freshman physics and calculus are
not enough to handle.

You all time about Maxwell's hypothesis. But Maxwell wrote: "The general
type of a stress is not suitable as a representation of a magnetic force,
because a line of magnetic force has direction and intensity, but has no
third qufility indicating any difference between the sides of the line,
which would be analogous to that observed in the case of polarized
light[2]." From: *http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force

To explain the light polarization Maxwell assumed that the current in the
wire create the magnetic whirl around the wire (The same for displacement
current in the space).

Maxwell's waves are polarized. Now you know that the dipoles are "polarized"
(not waves).
S*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

of course dipoles are polarized, dipoles = two poles, if you have two
poles you have to have at least 2 points, and 2 points define a line
and that line defines the polarization. qed.

What exactly is radio
 

U¿ytkownik "Szczepan Bialek" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
.. .

"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.

"As the electrons are undergoing acceleration they radiate electromagnetic
energy in their flight direction, and as they interact with the light
already emitted, photons along its line are emitted in phase, resulting in a
"laser-like" monocromatic and coherent beam. The mirrors show in the sketch
below are superfluous, as all the light is emitted in one direction anyway."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

So we have the light like the radio waves: Monocromatic and coherent. But it
is not from plain lasers.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"Sz Bialek wrote:
"Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?".

John D. Ktaus wrote on page 3 of his 1950 efition of "Antennas": Fig.
1-3. a length chart for EM waves from the microscopic to the astronomic.
Kraus was a famous radio astromoner. He obviously believed the EM
Spectrum was continuous, so do I.

Terman begins his antenna section in his 1955 edition of "Electronic and
Radio Engineering" on page 864. He explains and illustrates how vectors
form and control the far field radiation pattern of antennas.
Polarization is the direction of the electric field in the antenna and
in the field produced by the antenna.

Dipoles have nulls at their ends and maxima perpendicular to the
conductor as Terman shows in Fig. 23 on page 865,

Today, the postman felivered my eagerly awaited copy of W2DU`s
"Reflections III" and I can`t wait to read it either.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

What exactly is radio
 

On May 16, 4:41*pm, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:
U¿ytkownik "Szczepan Bialek" napisa³ w trada.pl...





"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.

"As the electrons are undergoing acceleration they radiate electromagnetic
energy in their flight direction, and as they interact with the light
already emitted, photons along its line are emitted in phase, resulting in a
"laser-like" monocromatic and coherent beam. The mirrors show in the sketch
below are superfluous, as all the light is emitted in one direction anyway."
From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

So we have the light like the radio waves: Monocromatic and coherent. But it
is not from plain lasers.
*S*

nothing is perfect. even radio waves are not perfectly monochromatic
and hence not perfectly coherent either. but they are close enough
that we can tell they are the same phenomenon, they are all
electromagnetic waves and obey the same laws.

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 16, 4:41 pm, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:


"As the electrons are undergoing acceleration they radiate
electromagnetic
energy in their flight direction, and as they interact with the light
already emitted, photons along its line are emitted in phase, resulting in
a
"laser-like" monocromatic and coherent beam. The mirrors show in the
sketch
below are superfluous, as all the light is emitted in one direction
anyway."
From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

So we have the light like the radio waves: Monocromatic and coherent. But
it
is not from plain lasers.
S*

nothing is perfect. even radio waves are not perfectly monochromatic
and hence not perfectly coherent either. but they are close enough
that we can tell they are the same phenomenon, they are all
electromagnetic waves and obey the same laws.

Nobody know what the EM waves are. See what Maxwell wrote: "I propose now
to examine magnetic phenomena from a mecha nical point of view, and to
determine what tensions in, or motions of, a medium are capable of producing
the mechanical pheno mena observed. If, by the same hypothesis, we can
connect the phenomena of magnetic attraction with electromagnetic phe nomena
and with those of induced currents, we shall have found a theory which, if
not true, can only be proved to be erroneous by experiments which will
greatly enlarge our knowledge of this part of physics. " From:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force

Our knowledge is enlarged enough to say:
Now we can tell that light. radio waves and sound are the same phenomenon
and obey the same laws.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
"Sz Bialek wrote:
"Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?".

John D. Ktaus wrote on page 3 of his 1950 efition of "Antennas": Fig.
1-3. a length chart for EM waves from the microscopic to the astronomic.
Kraus was a famous radio astromoner. He obviously believed the EM
Spectrum was continuous, so do I.

Terman begins his antenna section in his 1955 edition of "Electronic and
Radio Engineering" on page 864. He explains and illustrates how vectors
form and control the far field radiation pattern of antennas.
Polarization is the direction of the electric field in the antenna and
in the field produced by the antenna.

Electric field is along the wire. If antenna has the ball on the end the
electric field is at right angle to tha ball surface.

Dipoles have nulls at their ends and maxima perpendicular to the
conductor as Terman shows in Fig. 23 on page 865,

At the ends of the dipole the voltage is doubled (at least).

Today, the postman felivered my eagerly awaited copy of W2DU`s
"Reflections III" and I can`t wait to read it either.

In meantime read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

In Maxwell's hypothesis the electricity is incompressible. Standing waves in
antennas are the experimental prove that the hypothesis is erroneous.

See what Maxwell wrote: "I propose now
to examine magnetic phenomena from a mecha nical point of view, and to
determine what tensions in, or motions of, a medium are capable of producing
the mechanical pheno mena observed. If, by the same hypothesis, we can
connect the phenomena of magnetic attraction with electromagnetic phe nomena
and with those of induced currents, we shall have found a theory which, if
not true, can only be proved to be erroneous by experiments which will
greatly enlarge our knowledge of this part of physics. " From:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force

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

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

What exactly is radio
 

On May 19, 8:36*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Richard Harrison" ...

"Sz Bialek wrote:
"Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?".

John D. Ktaus wrote on page 3 of his 1950 efition of "Antennas": Fig.
1-3. a length chart for EM waves from the microscopic to the astronomic..
Kraus was a famous radio astromoner. He obviously believed the EM
Spectrum *was continuous, so do I.

Terman begins his antenna section in his 1955 edition of "Electronic and
Radio Engineering" on page 864. He explains and illustrates how vectors
form and control the far field radiation pattern of antennas.
Polarization is the direction of the electric field in the antenna and
in the field produced by the antenna.

Electric field is along the wire. If antenna has the ball on the end the
electric field is at right angle to tha ball surface.

Dipoles have nulls at their ends and maxima perpendicular to the
conductor as Terman shows in Fig. 23 on page 865,

At the ends of the dipole the voltage is doubled (at least).



Today, the postman felivered my eagerly awaited copy of W2DU`s
"Reflections III" and I can`t wait to read it either.

In meantime read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

In Maxwell's hypothesis the electricity is incompressible. Standing waves in
antennas are the experimental prove that the hypothesis is erroneous.

See what Maxwell wrote: "I propose now

to examine magnetic phenomena from a mecha nical point of view, and to
determine what tensions in, or motions of, a medium are capable of producing
the mechanical pheno mena observed. If, by the same hypothesis, we can
connect the phenomena of magnetic attraction with electromagnetic phe nomena
and with those of induced currents, we shall have found a theory which, if
not true, can only be proved to be erroneous by experiments which will
greatly enlarge our knowledge of this part of physics. " From:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force

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. 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 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...
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.

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?

What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "joe" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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.

Only can. Strong charged attracts the weaker charged.

I can demonstrate how magnets can repel each other.

The same as above.

How do I demonstrate the repelling effect of gravity?

An apple fall down but Moon dust levitates. Is it repelled?
Aepinus was sure about that. Now no doubts.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 22, 6:33 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*


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?

Maxwell's equations are wrote by Heaviside (engineer).
Maxwell did the aether model and proper math.
Teachers often use big names to support his program teaching.
The same is with Ampere. His name is used to support the magnetic whirl.
For Ampere the magnetism is an illusion. It is the electric field of moving
charges.

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

Whe they are? The reflected wave is weaker.

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.

The same is in conductors. Currents are DC or AC. Maxwell's displacement
current is the AC (oscillating).
In Maxwell's aether the current in the wire oscillate in phase with the
displacement current in the aether.

Why are you the slave the only one hipothesis. The "like sound" is the
theory.

In textbooks no statements which one is correct. The all are presented.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On May 22, 5:56*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT" ...
On May 22, 6:33 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*

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?

Maxwell's equations are wrote by Heaviside (engineer).
Maxwell did the aether model and proper math.
Teachers often use big names to support his program teaching.
*The same is with Ampere. His name is used to support the magnetic whirl.
For Ampere the magnetism is an illusion. It is the electric field of moving
charges.

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

an antenna.

Whe they are? The reflected wave is weaker.

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.

The same is in conductors. Currents are DC or AC. Maxwell's displacement
current is the AC (oscillating).
In Maxwell's aether the current in the wire oscillate in phase with the
displacement current in the aether.

Why are you the slave the only one hipothesis. The "like sound" is the
theory.

In textbooks no statements which one is correct. The all are presented.
S*

only in very basic non-scientific treatments. this is getting old
again, it is obvious you have stuck a hundred years or more in the
past and will never catch up.

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 22, 5:56 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

The same is in conductors. Currents are DC or AC. Maxwell's displacement
current is the AC (oscillating).
In Maxwell's aether the current in the wire oscillate in phase with the
displacement current in the aether.

Why are you the slave the only one hipothesis. The "like sound" is the
theory.

In textbooks no statements which one is correct. The all are presented.
S*

only in very basic non-scientific treatments. this is getting old
again, it is obvious you have stuck a hundred years or more in the
past and will never catch up.

Maxwell's model of aether (two substances) is from 1861.
Dirac model of aether (electrons see) is from 1930 (about).

Who of us is a hundred years or more in the past?
Who do not catch up?
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On May 23, 9:42*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 22, 5:56 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



The same is in conductors. Currents are DC or AC. Maxwell's displacement
current is the AC (oscillating).
In Maxwell's aether the current in the wire oscillate in phase with the
displacement current in the aether.

Why are you the slave the only one hipothesis. The "like sound" is the
theory.

In textbooks no statements which one is correct. The all are presented..
S*
only in very basic non-scientific treatments. *this is getting old

again, it is obvious you have stuck a hundred years or more in the
past and will never catch up.

Maxwell's model *of aether (two substances) is from 1861.
Dirac model of aether (electrons see) is from 1930 (about).

Who of us is a hundred years or more in the past?
Who do not catch up?
S*

sorry, last reply have real antennas to work on today. it was in
between them that the aether was pretty well shot down, you like
wikipedia, go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment
and think some more. dirac was trying to resurrect the aether, that
doesn't make him any more correct than you or art... even the best
thinkers have some bad side trips, the best of them know when to admit
they are on a dead end.

What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 23, 9:42 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Maxwell's model of aether (two substances) is from 1861.
Dirac model of aether (electrons see) is from 1930 (about).

? Who of us is a hundred years or more in the past?
Who do not catch up?
S*

sorry, last reply have real antennas to work on today. it was in
between them that the aether was pretty well shot down, you like
wikipedia, go read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment
and think some more.

The aether of Lorentz was shot down. Michelson in his famous experiments in
1887 and 1925 (with Gale) proved that the aether rotate with the Sun but do
not rotate with the Earth. Such model of the aether was made by Stokes, the
chamption of the aether.

Lorentz aether was motionless. You know that the Sun rotate. Why the plasma
do not?

The evidences of that are collected by A. G. Kelly:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/K...%20Light .pdf

dirac was trying to resurrect the aether, that
doesn't make him any more correct than you or art... even the best
thinkers have some bad side trips, the best of them know when to admit
they are on a dead end.

Maxwell was full of doubts.

The aether is shot down from teaching program. The plasma is included.
If somebody do not like the "aether waves" he can use the "plasma waves" or
something else..
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:37:58 -0500, tom wrote:

You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
Not knowing anything about what the two of you are talking about, just
gotta say one thing... Engineers are known for knowing all the
knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage.
Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham
radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the
hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. But
gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The
engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding
voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential,
while the newly licensed short order cook steps up and turns the
clarifier slightly and hears a much clearer voice, then tells the
Engineer "You go tune the antenna, while I make a connection to this
operator!"

What exactly is radio
 

"John H. Guillory" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:37:58 -0500, tom wrote:

You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.

Not knowing anything about what the two of you are talking about, just
gotta say one thing... Engineers are known for knowing all the
knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage.
Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham
radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the
hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. But
gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The
engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding
voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential,
while the newly licensed short order cook steps up and turns the
clarifier slightly and hears a much clearer voice, then tells the
Engineer "You go tune the antenna, while I make a connection to this
operator!"

Cute story, but it doesn't match what I've seen in industry. Maybe I worked
for better companies than you :)

What exactly is radio
 

On 7/9/2012 8:21 PM, John H. Guillory wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:37:58 -0500, wrote:

You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
Not knowing anything about what the two of you are talking about, just
gotta say one thing... Engineers are known for knowing all the
knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage.
Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham
radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the
hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. But
gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The
engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding
voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential,
while the newly licensed short order cook steps up and turns the
clarifier slightly and hears a much clearer voice, then tells the
Engineer "You go tune the antenna, while I make a connection to this
operator!"

Fortunately I learned to solder long before I learned engineering.

"Oscillators don't, amplifiers do."

tom
K0TAR

What exactly is radio
 

John H. Guillory wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:37:58 -0500, tom wrote:

You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
Not knowing anything about what the two of you are talking about, just
gotta say one thing... Engineers are known for knowing all the
knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage.
Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham
radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the
hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. But
gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The
engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding
voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential,
while the newly licensed short order cook steps up and turns the
clarifier slightly and hears a much clearer voice, then tells the
Engineer "You go tune the antenna, while I make a connection to this
operator!"

Most engineers are not technicians though a lot were a one time.

Do doctors usually know the best way to mop the floors in the hospital?