Antenna materials
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Oct 14, 7:47 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

So in a transmmiter station the electrons must flow (pulsatile flow
combined
with the oscillations) in the opposite direction. Could you detect it?

the reality is what is described in the current texts used in
colleges. and no, you can not measure a net flow of electrons in a
transmitting antenna.

Yes. But you can.
S*

Antenna materials
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote
...
K1TTT wrote:

no, the flow of electrons stays in the antenna and is sinusoidal...
they do not jump off the antenna.

Accch! Look what happens when I take a weekend off!

Okay now. I have the N3LI legal department working overtime now.

I am the person who invented the particles leaving the antenna theory.
Not Art, in fact I declare prior Art, or even prior to Art.

Ive posted it before but probably before you joined the group, so here
goes.....


The process of electromagnetic communications is all based upon tiny
little turds that reside on your antenna. Very small turds they are, yet
very powerful.

While transmitting, the little turds jump off the antenna, fly into the
atmosphere or aether, and then eventually land on a receiver's antenna,
completing the circuit.

So they should be taken from the ground, send in the ether, land on a
receiver's antenna and flow to ground, completing the circuit. Is it
possible to detect it?

This is why it is important to transmit every so often, so that your
antenna does not gain too much weight. During solar maximum, inactive Hams
often have their crappy antennas fall down.

Near the ocean the situation is worse, ya gotta transmit even more often,
lest ye be shoveling s**t against the tide.

And it is a well known fact that antennas that are used more for
transmitting take on a much higher polish, because there are less little
turds, and everyone knows you cant polish a.... oh never mind.

Anyhow, despite some twisted language, it is obvious that these particles
are a mer attempt to subvert the original and correct theory.

S*

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 14, 5:10*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Michael Coslo" ...



K1TTT wrote:

no, the flow of electrons stays in the antenna and is sinusoidal...
they do not jump off the antenna.

Accch! Look what happens when I take a weekend off!

Okay now. I have the N3LI legal department working overtime now.

I am the person who invented the *particles leaving the antenna theory.
Not Art, in fact I declare prior Art, or even prior to Art.

Ive posted it before but probably before you joined the group, so here
goes.....

The process of electromagnetic communications is all based upon tiny
little turds that reside on your antenna. Very small turds they are, yet
very powerful.

While transmitting, the little turds jump off the antenna, fly into the
atmosphere or aether, and then eventually land on a receiver's antenna,
completing the circuit.

So they should be taken from the ground, send in the ether, land on a
receiver's antenna and flow to ground, completing the circuit. Is it
possible to detect it?


sure, put your antenna in a glass bottle, seal it in with good glue so
nothing can slip out that way... then transmit, the inside of the
bottle will instantly be covered with little turds so you won't be
able to see the antenna any more... case closed.

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 14, 12:01*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Water molecules move mostly horizontally. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift

What percentage of water molecules are moving more horizontally than
vertically for what percentage of the time? That percentage is
certainly pretty small. Even for those normal steady-state waves, it
appears that the vertical motion at the surface is still greater than
the horizontal motion for at least half of the cycle. *Anywhere except
at the very surface, the vertical motion is obviously greater than the
horizontal motion*. But the subject was a transient tsunami wave where
the horizontal motion is virtually non-existent because of inertia.
Thanks for the example that proves my point.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Antenna materials
 

On 10/14/10 6:00 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Oct 14, 5:10 pm, "Szczepan wrote:
"Michael ...



K1TTT wrote:

no, the flow of electrons stays in the antenna and is sinusoidal...
they do not jump off the antenna.

Accch! Look what happens when I take a weekend off!

Okay now. I have the N3LI legal department working overtime now.

I am the person who invented the particles leaving the antenna theory.
Not Art, in fact I declare prior Art, or even prior to Art.

Ive posted it before but probably before you joined the group, so here
goes.....

The process of electromagnetic communications is all based upon tiny
little turds that reside on your antenna. Very small turds they are, yet
very powerful.

While transmitting, the little turds jump off the antenna, fly into the
atmosphere or aether, and then eventually land on a receiver's antenna,
completing the circuit.

So they should be taken from the ground, send in the ether, land on a
receiver's antenna and flow to ground, completing the circuit. Is it
possible to detect it?


sure, put your antenna in a glass bottle, seal it in with good glue so
nothing can slip out that way... then transmit, the inside of the
bottle will instantly be covered with little turds so you won't be
able to see the antenna any more... case closed.

Wasn't that a Jim Croce song? "If I could save turds in a bottle.....

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Antenna materials
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Oct 14, 12:01 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Water molecules move mostly horizontally.
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift

What percentage of water molecules are moving more horizontally than
vertically for what percentage of the time? That percentage is
certainly pretty small. Even for those normal steady-state waves, it
appears that the vertical motion at the surface is still greater than
the horizontal motion for at least half of the cycle.

Stokes measured the movements. They are shown the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif

Each wave transports a mass. So the movements must be nonsymmetrical in in
direction of propagation.

*Anywhere except
at the very surface, the vertical motion is obviously greater than the
horizontal motion*. But the subject was a transient tsunami wave where
the horizontal motion is virtually non-existent because of inertia.

If the bottom of the ocean go up than the water is flowing outside this
place. It is a simple flow not a wave.
S*

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 16, 8:17*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Cecil Moore" ...
On Oct 14, 12:01 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Water molecules move mostly horizontally.
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift
What percentage of water molecules are moving more horizontally than

vertically for what percentage of the time? That percentage is
certainly pretty small. Even for those normal steady-state waves, it
appears that the vertical motion at the surface is still greater than
the horizontal motion for at least half of the cycle.

Stokes measured the movements. They are shown thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De..._three_periods...

Each wave transports a mass. So the movements must be nonsymmetrical in in
direction of propagation.

*Anywhere except

at the very surface, the vertical motion is obviously greater than the
horizontal motion*. But the subject was a transient tsunami wave where
the horizontal motion is virtually non-existent because of inertia.

If the bottom of the ocean go up than the water is flowing outside this
place. It is a simple flow not a wave.
S*

water flow and water waves are NOT good analogs for electromagnetic
waves. the only common part is that some part of the solution of
their equations includes a sine or cosine function.

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 16, 3:17*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
If the bottom of the ocean go up than the water is flowing outside this
place. It is a simple flow not a wave.

:-) The bottom of the ocean going up (and down), i.e. earthquake, is
the major *cause* of Tsunami waves. Once set in motion, no further
movement of the bottom of the ocean is necessary. The energy in a
Tsunami wave extends all the way from the depth of the earthquake
source to the surface. Almost all of the water molecule movement in a
Tsunami wave is up and down. There is virtually no simple flow in a
Tsunami wave since the *energy* is traveling at hundreds of meters per
second. If it was "simple flow and not a wave" the energy in the wave
would be dissipated in accelerating the water molecules to a velocity
of hundreds of meters per second. Hint: Try making a spinning top out
of an unboiled egg.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Antenna materials
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...

water flow and water waves are NOT good analogs for electromagnetic
waves. the only common part is that some part of the solution of
their equations includes a sine or cosine function.

Each waves are the same. They transport mass and energy. They never are
harmonic.
S*

Antenna materials
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Oct 16, 3:17 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

If the bottom of the ocean go up than the water is flowing outside this
place. It is a simple flow not a wave.

:-) The bottom of the ocean going up (and down), i.e. earthquake, is
the major *cause* of Tsunami waves. Once set in motion, no further
movement of the bottom of the ocean is necessary. The energy in a
Tsunami wave extends all the way from the depth of the earthquake
source to the surface. Almost all of the water molecule movement in a
Tsunami wave is up and down. There is virtually no simple flow in a
Tsunami wave since the *energy* is traveling at hundreds of meters per
second.

"The measured tsunami flow velocities were within the range of 2 to 5 m/s. "
From: http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2006/2006GL026784.shtml

If it was "simple flow and not a wave" the energy in the wave
would be dissipated in accelerating the water molecules to a velocity
of hundreds of meters per second. Hint: Try making a spinning top out
of an unboiled egg.

It is like the soliton.
S*
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com