Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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* |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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* |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|