"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural"
insulations:
the ice and the wet?

What part of the words "insulation" and "insulator" do you not understand?

There is nothing special about ice or liquid water and the electrical
properties of both can be easily looked up.

There is nothing mystical about something that is "natural".

You assume that everything "can be easily looked up". It is right for the
old theories.

But now is the new Art's "time dependent Gauss law" theory.

At the ends of the dipole the alternate electric field is produced. There is
the Lodges glow.

So it is interesting if that glow is also visible on insulated wires and
what is emitted from the antenna.

You have opportunity to develop the Art's theory. Do not be lazy.
S*

Yet more babbling gibberish and word salad.

Seek medical help.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Aug 2, 7:12*pm, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:
....

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural"
insulations:
the ice and the wet?

What part of the words "insulation" and "insulator" do you not understand?
There is nothing special about ice or liquid water and the electrical
properties of both can be easily looked up.

There is nothing mystical about something that is "natural".

You assume that everything "can be easily looked up". It is right for the
old theories.

But now is the new Art's "time dependent Gauss law" theory.

At the ends of the dipole the alternate electric field is produced. There is
the Lodges glow.

So it is interesting if that glow is also visible on insulated wires and
what is emitted from the antenna.

You have opportunity to develop the Art's theory. Do not be lazy.
S*

i suggest you talk to art about art's theory, the rest of us on here
know that it is pure garbage. for your information gauss's law has
always been time dependent, art just doesn't understand that and
insists on rewriting and reinterpreting it. he is wrong, and you are
wasting time trying to follow him... but then again you are wasting
your time on just about everything you write on here anyway.

On 8/1/2010 1:27 PM, K1TTT wrote:
What you post is word salad.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...com/word+salad

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

oh, oh, i can search the web also! I like this one, it describes mr.
b perfectly!

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...jargon+aphasia


I'm not sure you've hit it here. Mr B seems to understand language, he
just ignores the responses if they don't support his skewed world view.

Possibly this is an undiscovered binary version of aphasia.

tom
K0TAR

On 8/2/2010 2:12 PM, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
wrote ...
Szczepan wrote:


The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural"
insulations:
the ice and the wet?

What part of the words "insulation" and "insulator" do you not understand?

There is nothing special about ice or liquid water and the electrical
properties of both can be easily looked up.

There is nothing mystical about something that is "natural".

You assume that everything "can be easily looked up". It is right for the
old theories.


You're missing something very important here, and you ask for the
information and then discount it when it doesn't satisfy you.

The MEASURED CHARACTERISTICS of something cannot change just because the
theory explaining it has changed.

And it is quite easy to find. I'm surprised since you seem to be able
to find all the esoteric explanations of how the world works.

Your brain is broken, get it checked.

tom
K0TAR

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Aug 2, 7:12 pm, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:

But now is the new Art's "time dependent Gauss law" theory.

At the ends of the dipole the alternate electric field is produced. There
is
the Lodges glow.

So it is interesting if that glow is also visible on insulated wires and
what is emitted from the antenna.

You have opportunity to develop the Art's theory. Do not be lazy.

i suggest you talk to art about art's theory, the rest of us on here
know that it is pure garbage. for your information gauss's law has
always been time dependent, art just doesn't understand that and
insists on rewriting and reinterpreting it. he is wrong, and you are
wasting time trying to follow him... but then again you are wasting
your time on just about everything you write on here anyway.

So the question "How the radio works? is still open.
S*

"tom" wrote
. net...

I'm not sure you've hit it here. Mr B seems to understand language, he
just ignores the responses if they don't support his skewed world view.

Longitudinal electric waves were supported by all scientists.
Maxwell-Heaviside's erroneous hipothesis is chosen to teach the field
theory.
Radio people should know that.
S*

"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 8/2/2010 2:12 PM, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

You're missing something very important here, and you ask for the
information and then discount it when it doesn't satisfy you.

I encourage you to find the correct.

The MEASURED CHARACTERISTICS of something cannot change just because the
theory explaining it has changed.

Yes. But the permittivity is the result of the conductivity measurement.
Conductors, semiconductors and insulators are for students. It is
simplification.
The reality is more complex.

And it is quite easy to find. I'm surprised since you seem to be able to
find all the esoteric explanations of how the world works.

I can find milions papers on the theory of glow and losses in AC network.
The same should be for the radio frequences.
I was thinking that somebody from you have a link to such.

The AC glow is not simmetrical. So in the radio transmitter must be the
netto electrons flow.
Where can I find the DC ground current?

S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Aug 1, 4:52 pm, wrote:
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The question was: "Does solid insulation makes the radiation weaker or
stop
it?"
And the question has been answered many times now by several people.

In the real and practical world, no, insulation will not stop the
radiation
from an RF antenna and depending on the frequency and material of the
insulation some of the radiation will be aborbed as heat by the
insulation.

The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural" insulations:
the ice and the wet?

Sometimes are on your dipoles an ice or water.
They should melt/evaporate in the places where are picks of the voltage.
Is it observed?

Are you assuming that because there is high voltage, there is current
induced heating?

Voltage does not translate diresctly to heat.

"Michael Coslo" wrote
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural"
insulations: the ice and the wet?

Sometimes are on your dipoles an ice or water.
They should melt/evaporate in the places where are picks of the voltage.
Is it observed?

Are you assuming that because there is high voltage, there is current
induced heating?

Bill Miller calls it "the transverse current". Electrons must displace
perpendicular to the antenna surface in AC.
In insulators are the electric losses.

Voltage does not translate diresctly to heat.

In insulated antena are the transverse current and the displacement current.

The all are facts. Should be easy to observe.

Some topics ago somebody analised the antenna temperature.
The end of the dipole should be the hottest.

Have you any observations in this subject?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

So the question "How the radio works? is still open.
S*

Maybe to you but not to the sane and educated people of the world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.