"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*

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.

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*

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.

"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*

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