On Apr 30, 2:14*am, "Peter" wrote:
I'm preparing an article for a local radio club magazine about the nature of
radio and electromagnetic radiation in general. While this is a non
mathematical and general descriptive treatment of the subject it is a
challenge to make it clear and consistent.
I know this group has some expertise on this subject and would appreciate
any constructive comment and suggestions regarding the attached article.

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/radio.htm

Thank you for your time.

Regards Peter VK6YSF

For what it's worth...

I've often found it useful to consider alternate ways to think about
things. In this thread, there have been some comments about electric
fields, magnetic fields and electromagnetic fields. So, I ask: how
do we measure fields? As far as I know, it's by their interaction
with matter: we observe how an electromagnetic field accelerates
electrons, for example. Do we have any way other than by observing
how a (E, M, or EM) field interacts with matter to measure a field?
If not, does a field _necessarily_ have any physical reality, any
reality beyond a mathematical model to explain what we observe?

I suppose some here won't be ready to contemplate this in any depth,
though others may find it enlightening.

One might say that radio is the practical use of the observed physical
effect that accelerating charges in one place leads to free charges at
distant points being accelerated, in a manner we're able to describe
pretty accurately, so far as we know now, with our models.

Cheers,
Tom

On Tue, 4 May 2010 18:16:26 -0700 (PDT), K7ITM wrote:

For what it's worth... Do we have any way other than by observing
how a (E, M, or EM) field interacts with matter to measure a field?

Hi Tom,

You ask if we have "any way other... [than where a field] interacts
with matter." In a side thread, there is the discussion of heat. Heat
is a quasi-particle which means it does not exist as a physical
entity, but it acts like one (shades of photon duality). Heat is
wholly without matter, but in the whole absence of matter there is no
such thing as heat.

As to the remainder of the quote "to measure." This demands
physicality and your statement is self-negating in its plea.

If we rewind to the beginning of the plea, "observing" is a physical
interference described by Heisenberg. The bookends of your plea are,
then, doubly negating. That or (and here the thread returns to
metaphysics once again) interactions go unwitnessed - which is an
existential negation.

Expecting any reports from the Cat in the Box? Perhaps through an
entangled cat?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

K7ITM wrote:

For what it's worth...

I've often found it useful to consider alternate ways to think about
things. In this thread, there have been some comments about electric
fields, magnetic fields and electromagnetic fields. So, I ask: how
do we measure fields? As far as I know, it's by their interaction
with matter: we observe how an electromagnetic field accelerates
electrons, for example. Do we have any way other than by observing
how a (E, M, or EM) field interacts with matter to measure a field?
If not, does a field _necessarily_ have any physical reality, any
reality beyond a mathematical model to explain what we observe?

. . .

On the first day of the first class of Electromagnetic Fields, I asked
the professor (Carl T.A. Johnk, author of _Engineering Electromagnetic
Fields and Waves_), "What is an electromagnetic field?" His answer:
"It's a mathematical model we use to help us understand phenomena we can
observe and measure." And I see that in the second paragraph of his book
he writes "A field is taken to mean a mathematical function of space and
time." I've been satisfied with that definition.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

4 "Roy Lewallen" wrote
...
K7ITM wrote:

For what it's worth...

I've often found it useful to consider alternate ways to think about
things. In this thread, there have been some comments about electric
fields, magnetic fields and electromagnetic fields. So, I ask: how
do we measure fields? As far as I know, it's by their interaction
with matter: we observe how an electromagnetic field accelerates
electrons, for example. Do we have any way other than by observing
how a (E, M, or EM) field interacts with matter to measure a field?
If not, does a field _necessarily_ have any physical reality, any
reality beyond a mathematical model to explain what we observe?
. . .

On the first day of the first class of Electromagnetic Fields, I asked the
professor (Carl T.A. Johnk, author of _Engineering Electromagnetic Fields
and Waves_), "What is an electromagnetic field?" His answer: "It's a
mathematical model we use to help us understand phenomena we can observe
and measure." And I see that in the second paragraph of his book he writes
"A field is taken to mean a mathematical function of space and time." I've
been satisfied with that definition.

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); "

But what produce very slow charge?

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).

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

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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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: 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.

"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*

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.

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?

"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*