Peter wrote:
"----- it is a challenge to make it clear and consistent."

For me. no one does a better job than Dr. Frederick Emmons Terman who
wrote on page 1 of "Electronics and Radio Engineering":
"Electrical energy that has escaped into free space is in the form of
electromagnetic waves. These waves, which are commonly called radio
waves, travel with the velocity of light and donsist of magnetic and
electric hields that are at right angles to each other and also at right
angles to the direction of travel."

The rest is in the book which should be consulted for a complete
definition.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZ5

Uzytkownik "Richard Harrison" napisal w
wiadomosci ...
Peter wrote:
"----- it is a challenge to make it clear and consistent."

For me. no one does a better job than Dr. Frederick Emmons Terman who
wrote on page 1 of "Electronics and Radio Engineering":
"Electrical energy that has escaped into free space is in the form of
electromagnetic waves. These waves, which are commonly called radio
waves, travel with the velocity of light and donsist of magnetic and
electric hields that are at right angles to each other and also at right
angles to the direction of travel."

The rest is in the book which should be consulted for a complete
definition.

Maxwell proposed EM to explain the polarization of light.
Now the radio waves are or are not polarized.

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. This has the effect of producing greater
penetration into buildings and difficult reception areas than a signal with
just one plane of polarization. This would be an instance where the
polarization would more appropriately be called random polarization (or
simply unpolarized). See Stokes parameters."

Why "erroneously"?

Are the radio waves different than light?

S*



Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZ5

Sz. Bialek wrote:
"Are the radio waves different than light?"

Yes, as light waves are much higher in frequency than radio waves but,
in most ways they are identical. As an example, cross-polarized
receptors for both light and radio waves suffer greatly in receptivity.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Uzytkownik "Richard Harrison" napisal w
wiadomosci ...
Sz. Bialek wrote:
"Are the radio waves different than light?"

Yes, as light waves are much higher in frequency than radio waves but,
in most ways they are identical. As an example, cross-polarized
receptors for both light and radio waves suffer greatly in receptivity.

So in most ways yes.
Radio waves from the dipole are polarized. Does it mean that light is
emitted by a dipoles?

We can shield the one end of the dipole. Are such waves polarized?

Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?

Are the ansfers in "Electronics and Radio Engineering"?
S*

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.


Why the dipoles exhibit the directional pattern?

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

"K1TTT" wrote
...
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?

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?

S*

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.

"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

"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

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.