On Jul 4, 4:19*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT" ...
On Jul 4, 8:28 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"lu6etj"
...

Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another

guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners? I am sorry because I miss some of your subtleties or
grammatical tricks and I suspect they have more funny meanings that I
can capture :)

Try to understand. Richard gives the free English lessons. I have learnt
a
lot from him.
S*
just nothing about electromagnetics i guess.

Yes. Because I am interested in the antennas and Richard is an expert in it.
*In electromagnetics Maxwell and Heaveside are the experts. Available on
line.
S*

unfortunately you have to learn modern em to know what writings of
maxwell and heaveside to bother believing... they both went through
learning periods before they came to the final transverse wave
formulations. if you read their earlier works you will be mislead
because they were still learning and following dead end paths like
aether theory and fluid analogies.

On 4 jul, 20:53, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 4, 4:19*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





"K1TTT" ...
On Jul 4, 8:28 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"lu6etj"
...

Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another

guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners? I am sorry because I miss some of your subtleties or
grammatical tricks and I suspect they have more funny meanings that I
can capture :)

Try to understand. Richard gives the free English lessons. I have learnt
a
lot from him.
S*
just nothing about electromagnetics i guess.

Yes. Because I am interested in the antennas and Richard is an expert in it.
*In electromagnetics Maxwell and Heaveside are the experts. Available on
line.
S*

unfortunately you have to learn modern em to know what writings of
maxwell and heaveside to bother believing... they both went through
learning periods before they came to the final transverse wave
formulations. *if you read their earlier works you will be mislead
because they were still learning and following dead end paths like
aether theory and fluid analogies.- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Hello all, friends.

Sorry, I thought we was basically alone in this issue with Richard :)

Then, perhaps some of you can help me if I am not capable to make my
poor english writings intelligible enough. I feel as if Richard had
not pointed in the direction I point. I think that because his
references to S+N/N and others made me think Richard are thinking in
detect low frequency wave quanta at little energy levels, and I am
talking about to perceive the little LF quanta at high energy levels
(large scale oscillators).
In my original example I said we are not able distinguish (today...
tomorrow who knows?) Osc. A from Osc. B, having Osc. A 4*10^28
quanta and Osc. B 4*10^28 +1 quanta, having each 80 m quantum 2.3 *
10^-19 J.

(I know my friend Richard inevitably is going to penalize me for this
"analogy", but it is so beautiful that I could not resist..!) = The
problem is such as distinguish between two zeppelins of about 1500 m^3
each one having zeppelin A only one molecule more than zeppelin B...!
Do not we need an alien Roswell Grey technology for that? :)

Last night I found in the web the "strange word", it is not
"granularity" it is = "graininess", graininess translate to spanish
properly to "granularidad" and granularidad to english as
granularity :)

At the end of this link: http://panda.unm.edu/Courses/Finley/...hermalRad.html
there are a similar text in its original english words =

"Therefore, we see that the quantization of energy simply does not
show up for large-scale oscillators. The smallness of Planck's
constant makes the graininess in the energy much too fine to detect in
those experiments. This is quite similar to the statement that we do
not ordinarily observe the fact that the air in the room is actually
made up of many, many individual molecules. Nonetheless, we can indeed
perform experiments in which this graininess is noticeable, and even
important. Obviously the behavior of the spectral radiancy at very
short wavelengths is one such case. The phenomena involved with the
photoelectric effect, and the Compton effect, are others."

I apologize for my insistence dear Richard, I do not want to be
stubborn but I remember Carl Sagan telling: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence" and my posting about the very large
quantum number of the 3.5 MHz Xmtrs play here the "conservative"
role :)

73 to all Miguel - LU6ETJ

PS: Szczepan: Thanks for your info.
Richard: Why a "white board"? has a special meaning? - You are
saying Cecil it is as Dr. House? - Really nice car your RX-7, I envy
you! - My London friend is "missing2 I owe you some answers :(

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:51:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I apologize for my insistence dear Richard, I do not want to be
stubborn but I remember Carl Sagan telling: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence"

Hi Miguel,

Sagan never impressed me, and this quote even less. It relies on
mystical explanations when ordinary works quite well.

and my posting about the very large
quantum number of the 3.5 MHz Xmtrs play here the "conservative"
role :)

The link leads to a lot of tedious and pedantic writing.

Your new analogy fails as quickly as the rest, so by extension I must
presume that the work revealed at your link fails too. That is the
usual fate of tying two things together when one is a rhetorical
anchor.

When I speak of S+N/N, this is to mean that extraneous detail (fables
of mosquitoes, large cars and even larger blimps) only adds noise.

Skip the "extraordinary," stop the fables, and simply state your case.
When you remove all this noise, you may discover you are not writing
about a quantum system at all, but numbers without meaning. A simple
test: what changes its quantum state at 3.5MHz? Is it sub-atomic,
atomic, or molecular?

Richard: Why a "white board"? has a special meaning? - You are
saying Cecil it is as Dr. House? - Really nice car your RX-7, I envy
you! - My London friend is "missing2 I owe you some answers :(

Dr. House refuses to let students write on his white board.

I've driven RXs for 28 years: a 1978 and a 1990 GTU.

London is a nice place to be missing in. I've spent time near
Vauxhall bridge in Westminster.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 5 jul, 06:31, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:51:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I apologize for my insistence dear Richard, I do not want to be
stubborn but I remember Carl Sagan telling: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence"

Hi Miguel,

Sagan never impressed me, and this quote even less. *It relies on
mystical explanations when ordinary works quite well.

and my posting about the very large
quantum number of the 3.5 MHz Xmtrs play here the "conservative"
role :)

The link leads to a lot of tedious and pedantic writing.

Your new analogy fails as quickly as the rest, so by extension I must
presume that the work revealed at your link fails too. *That is the
usual fate of tying two things together when one is a rhetorical
anchor.

When I speak of S+N/N, this is to mean that extraneous detail (fables
of mosquitoes, large cars and even larger blimps) only adds noise.

Skip the "extraordinary," stop the fables, and simply state your case.
When you remove all this noise, you may discover you are not writing
about a quantum system at all, but numbers without meaning. *A simple
test: what changes its quantum state at 3.5MHz? *Is it sub-atomic,
atomic, or molecular?

Richard: *Why a "white board"? has a special meaning? - You are
saying *Cecil it is as Dr. House? - Really nice car your RX-7, I envy
you! - My London friend is "missing2 I owe you some answers :(

Dr. House refuses to let students write on his white board.

I've driven RXs for 28 years: a 1978 and a 1990 GTU.

London is a nice place to be missing in. *I've spent time near
Vauxhall bridge in Westminster.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sorry, I posted my answer in another branch of the thread (I hope not
to have bothered our friends...)

Hi Richard, good day:

Again you give me another rethoric answer... Please, tell us how to
measure to distinguish Osc. A from Osc. B, having Osc. A 4*10^28
quanta and Osc. B 4*10^28 +1 quanta, having each 80 m quantum 2.3 *
10^-19 J.

Your answers are making me remember = "It was the only explicit
answer you will ever get" or "Superman's cataracts with his xray
vision. This is probably going to be your only direct
answer." (Please do not go upsetting, I am joking).

You dislike my examples, you dislike R & H & K classic and obviously
really good peer reviewed book reference (and examples), you dislike
university notes, you dislike analogies, you dislike Sagan... Today I
know all things you dislike, what I do not know is how measure A and
B
oscillator to distinguish each other... :D
Remember, you are rebutting things stated in standard university
physics book, does not reverse the burden of proof.
Please be a good boy, be plain and do not resort to old tricks such
as
posting esoteric rocket science hiper-specialized incomprehensible
answers :)
......
I ommited to say the example of the University of New Mexico link
it is similar to the one given in "Physics for scientists and
engineers" (Serway & Beichner, my copy is in spanish). They say the
same about it.

Humorous note: Richard Feynman do not share your dislike for
analogies he compare corks in water with charged objects fields :)

73 Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

what I do not know is how measure A and
B oscillator to distinguish each other... :D

I gave you that solution: multiply them. Very simple exercise
available to anyone with sufficient bench equipment. Skip the quotes
of undergraduate scribblers with little imagination that shrug their
shoulders at their own failure.

Humorous note: Richard Feynman do not share your dislike for
analogies he compare corks in water with charged objects fields :)

Feynman was a humorous fellow, but you are using undergrad texts
instead of his - why?

As I've already offered, drop all the frills and adornment and tell me
what scale the source of your 80M problem exists at:
1. Subatomic,
2. Atomic,
3. Molecular.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 6 jul, 16:24, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

what I do not know is how measure A and
B oscillator to distinguish each other... :D

I gave you that solution: multiply them. *Very simple exercise
available to anyone with sufficient bench equipment. *Skip the quotes
of undergraduate scribblers with little imagination that shrug their
shoulders at their own failure.

Humorous note: Richard Feynman do not share your dislike for
analogies he compare corks in water with charged objects fields :)

Feynman was a humorous fellow, but you are using undergrad texts
instead of his - why?

As I've already offered, drop all the frills and adornment and tell me
what scale the source of your 80M problem exists at:
1. *Subatomic,
2. *Atomic,
3. *Molecular.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hello Richard, good day.

Thank you very much for your friendly company, I enjoyed this
conversation but I think it is time to go back because it is leaning
dangerously close to an eristic exercise :)
I am sure we will have very interesting other things to talk about our
common topic.

Best regards

Your friend Miguel

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jul 4, 4:19 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In electromagnetics Maxwell and Heaveside are the experts. Available on
line.

unfortunately you have to learn modern em to know what writings of
maxwell and heaveside to bother believing... they both went through
learning periods before they came to the final transverse wave
formulations. if you read their earlier works you will be mislead
because they were still learning and following dead end paths like
aether theory and fluid analogies.

Maxwell's aether was as perfect solid with the molecular vortices. The
magnetic field was the sum of the molecular.
The Faraday effect was explained. Transverse waves possible. But in solid
possible are also the longitudinal.
Which of them are in reality decide experiments.

Heaviside modified Maxwell' model. His aether is also motionless but withot
the molecular vortices:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electr..._moving_charge

Now inside the solenoid no rotations. What rotate the polarisation plane?

Heaviside (father of Maxwell' equations) did not understand Maxwell and did
not agree with the rest:

"Prof. Thomson, who otherwise confirms my results, has also extended the
matter by supposing that the medium itself is set in motion, as well as the
electrification. This is somewhat beyond me. I do not yet know certainly
that the ether can move, or its laws of motion if it can. Fresnel thought
the earth could move through the ether without disturbing it; Stokes, that
it carried the ether along with it, by giving irrotational motion to it."

" I must, however, disagree with Prof. Thomson's assumption that the motion
must be irrotational. It would appear, by the above, that this limitation is
unnecessary."

I simply agree with Maxwell, Stokes, Thompson and the rest famous scientists
that no rotational vibrations (transverse waves).

You prefer Heaviside (engineer) and Authors of the textbooks .
S*

On Jul 5, 8:12*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT" ...
On Jul 4, 4:19 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



In electromagnetics Maxwell and Heaveside are the experts. Available on
line.
unfortunately you have to learn modern em to know what writings of

maxwell and heaveside to bother believing... they both went through
learning periods before they came to the final transverse wave
formulations. *if you read their earlier works you will be mislead
because they were still learning and following dead end paths like
aether theory and fluid analogies.

Maxwell's aether was as perfect solid with the molecular vortices. The
magnetic field was the sum of the molecular.
The Faraday effect was explained. Transverse waves possible. But in solid
possible are also the longitudinal.
Which of them are in reality decide experiments.

Heaviside modified Maxwell' model. His aether is also motionless but withot
the molecular vortices:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electr..._moving_charge


if that is all the further you have read then you have much to learn.
at the very beginning they are conjecturing about the possibility of
infinite vs finite propagation velocity, so obviously they have not
made the critical measurements yet to refine the equations to the
proper ones and eliminate all the possible aetheric solutions.

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jul 5, 8:12 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Heaviside modified Maxwell' model. His aether is also motionless but
withot
the molecular
vortices:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electr..._moving_charge

if that is all the further you have read then you have much to learn.
at the very beginning they
infinite vs finite propagation velocity, so obviously they have not
made the critical measurements yet to refine the equations to the
proper ones and eliminate all the possible aetheric solutions.

You probably have heard about the sulimation of matter and photoemission of
electrons,
It means that in the space is the saturated vapour (todays plasma). It is
the medium for your radio waves.
It is known from Ludwig Lorenz.

Todays authors are conjecturing about the possibility of the transverse
waves. Is it not funny?
What waves are in your transmissing line?
S*

On Jul 5, 4:41*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On Jul 5, 8:12 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



Heaviside modified Maxwell' model. His aether is also motionless but
withot
the molecular
vortices:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electr..._moving_charge
if that is all the further you have read then you have much to learn.

at the very beginning they
infinite vs finite propagation velocity, so obviously they have not
made the critical measurements yet to refine the equations to the
proper ones and eliminate all the possible aetheric solutions.

You probably have heard about the sulimation of matter and photoemission of
electrons,
It means that in the space is the saturated vapour (todays plasma). It is
the medium for your radio waves.
It is known from Ludwig Lorenz.

Todays authors are conjecturing about the possibility of the transverse
waves. Is it not funny?
What waves are in your transmissing line?
S*

i still want to see how you polarize longitudinal waves.