Antenna materials
 

"John Smith" wrote
...
On 10/10/2010 11:54 AM, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

...
We are discussing on the pulsatile flows of electrons and emission of
them
from antenna end at transmitting.
At receiving the pulsative flow is in the oppsite direction.
Do you agree?
S*

Yeah, have heard that described before ... medical marijuana has gotten a
lot more potent, huh?

What do you take that in your head is only the magnetic whirl and no place
for electrns?
S*

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 11, 1:25*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"John Smith" ...

On 10/10/2010 11:54 AM, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

...
We are discussing on the pulsatile flows of electrons and emission of
them
from antenna end at transmitting.
At receiving the pulsative flow is in the oppsite direction.
Do you agree?
S*

Yeah, have heard that described before ... medical marijuana has gotten a
lot more potent, huh?

What do you take that in your head is only the magnetic whirl and no place
for electrns?
S*

no whirls... the mathematical operator is called curl, but it does not
relate to the often pictured whirl or vortex.

Antenna materials
 

On 10/11/2010 2:47 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
great way to loose weight!

Brother, some arse has found a way to duplicate my posts, exactly ...
even for me, that is NOT a response I would have advanced ... it is
mildly annoying, I'll give 'em that ... but hey, it happens ...

Regards,
JS

Antenna materials
 

On 10/11/2010 10:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

...
What do you take that in your head is only the magnetic whirl and no place
for electrns?
S*

Look, the lamer which has discovered how to mimic me is having a lot of
fun ... it is kinda funny ... I will give him/her that ... marijuana and
"magnetic whirl" is/are not subjects I deal with ... you can disregard
any posts bearing my name, on this thread ...

Regards,
JS

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 11, 6:37*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 10/11/2010 10:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

...
What do you take that in your head is only the magnetic whirl and no place
for electrns?
S*

Look, the lamer which has discovered how to mimic me is having a lot of
fun ... it is kinda funny ... I will give him/her that ... marijuana and
"magnetic whirl" is/are not subjects I deal with ... you can disregard
any posts bearing my name, on this thread ...

Regards,
JS

thats ok, we disregard anything you say anywhere.

Antenna materials
 

On 10/11/2010 4:46 PM, K1TTT wrote:

...
thats ok, we disregard anything you say anywhere.

I like it when there is mutual agreement. Damn man, you aren't worth
the "paper" you write on ... I just love watching you go about it though
.... keep up the good work. wink

You are the best lesson in getting BS to float which I have ever
witnessed. Seen some good ones, but I will admit, you are top of class!

Carry on, stiff upper lip, all that ...

Regards,
JS

Antenna materials
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...

no whirls... the mathematical operator is called curl, but it does not
relate to the often pictured whirl or vortex.

The math is for the geometrcal description.

In Maxwell hypothesis are the molecullar vortices. The line of force rotate.
Around the wire are the rings like the Helmholtz smoke rings. The line of
force can rotate continously or oscillate. Nothing flow along the line of
force. Maxwell did this model for the transverse waves. They are in solids
and the math is used for the torsional vibrations.

Next Heaviside did more simple math for the TEM. It is tought as EM. But I
dont understand it.
S*

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 12, 4:11*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
But I dont understand it.
S*

that is the first true thing you have said... once you do come back.

Antenna materials
 

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.

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.


- Mike -

Antenna materials
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Oct 12, 4:11 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
But I dont understand it.
S*

that is the first true thing you have said... once you do come back.

I have problem with the Faraday effect:
http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...ay/index.shtml

"Although Michael Faraday discovered this effect in 1845, it wasn't modeled
quantum mechanically until the 1960's. These theoretical calculations are
too sophisticated for the undergraduate student, but an excellent simplified
QM model is carefully presented in David Van Baak's AJP paper. (D.A. Van
Baak, Resonant Faraday Rotation as a Probe of Atomic Dispersion, Am. J.
Phys.64 (6) June 1996)"

In Maxwell's model inside of the solenoid are rotating wortices and they
rotate the plane of polarization.

In Heaviside's model inside of the solenoid is a flux. Do you know
(understand) how the flux can rotate something?
S*

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 12, 2:38*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Oct 12, 4:11 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

But I dont understand it.
S*
that is the first true thing you have said... once you do come back.

I have problem with the Faraday effect:http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...ay/index.shtml

"Although Michael Faraday discovered this effect in 1845, it wasn't modeled
quantum mechanically until the 1960's. These theoretical calculations are
too sophisticated for the undergraduate student, but an excellent simplified
QM model is carefully presented in David Van Baak's AJP paper. (D.A. Van
Baak, Resonant Faraday Rotation as a Probe of Atomic Dispersion, Am. J.
Phys.64 (6) June 1996)"

In Maxwell's model inside of the solenoid are rotating wortices and they
rotate the plane of polarization.

In Heaviside's model inside of the solenoid is a flux. Do you know
(understand) how the flux can rotate something?
S*

you don't understand that the faraday effect relies on a material to
do the rotation. the magnetic field itself does not cause the
rotation it only aligns the molecules such that the polarization of
the light is affected. you could just as well ask how can your hand
rotate something when you turn a polarization filter or piece of
feldspar with your fingers. if the material is not present the light
does not rotate, and there are no vortices.

Antenna materials
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Oct 12, 2:38 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w
...
On Oct 12, 4:11 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

But I dont understand it.
S*
that is the first true thing you have said... once you do come back.

I have problem with the Faraday
effect:http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...ay/index.shtml

"Although Michael Faraday discovered this effect in 1845, it wasn't
modeled
quantum mechanically until the 1960's. These theoretical calculations are
too sophisticated for the undergraduate student, but an excellent
simplified
QM model is carefully presented in David Van Baak's AJP paper. (D.A. Van
Baak, Resonant Faraday Rotation as a Probe of Atomic Dispersion, Am. J.
Phys.64 (6) June 1996)"

In Maxwell's model inside of the solenoid are rotating wortices and they
rotate the plane of polarization.

In Heaviside's model inside of the solenoid is a flux. Do you know
(understand) how the flux can rotate something?
S*

you don't understand that the faraday effect relies on a material to
do the rotation. the magnetic field itself does not cause the
rotation it only aligns the molecules such that the polarization of
the light is affected. you could just as well ask how can your hand
rotate something when you turn a polarization filter or piece of
feldspar with your fingers. if the material is not present the light
does not rotate, and there are no vortices.

In Maxwell's model: "In Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force',
magnetic field strength H was directly equated with pure vorticity (spin),
whereas B was a weighted vorticity that was weighted for the density of the
vortex sea. Maxwell considered magnetic permeability ? to be a measure of
the density of the vortex sea. "

What is in Heaviside model?
S*

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 13, 3:37*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On Oct 12, 2:38 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w
...
On Oct 12, 4:11 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

But I dont understand it.
S*
that is the first true thing you have said... once you do come back.

I have problem with the Faraday
effect:http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...ay/index.shtml

"Although Michael Faraday discovered this effect in 1845, it wasn't
modeled
quantum mechanically until the 1960's. These theoretical calculations are
too sophisticated for the undergraduate student, but an excellent
simplified
QM model is carefully presented in David Van Baak's AJP paper. (D.A. Van
Baak, Resonant Faraday Rotation as a Probe of Atomic Dispersion, Am. J.
Phys.64 (6) June 1996)"

In Maxwell's model inside of the solenoid are rotating wortices and they
rotate the plane of polarization.

In Heaviside's model inside of the solenoid is a flux. Do you know
(understand) how the flux can rotate something?
S*
you don't understand that the faraday effect relies on a material to

do the rotation. *the magnetic field itself does not cause the
rotation it only aligns the molecules such that the polarization of
the light is affected. *you could just as well ask how can your hand
rotate something when you turn a polarization filter or piece of
feldspar with your fingers. *if the material is not present the light
does not rotate, and there are no vortices.

In Maxwell's model: "In Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force',
magnetic field strength H was directly equated with pure vorticity (spin),
whereas B was a weighted vorticity that was weighted for the density of the
vortex sea. Maxwell considered magnetic permeability ? to be a measure of
the density of the vortex sea. "

What is in Heaviside model?
S*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

whatever was written in 1861 was either proved wrong or at least
incomplete. you are 140 years out of date, first year college physics
and electrical engineering fields courses teach stuff that would have
totally amazed maxwell and friends in their simplicity and accuracy.

Antenna materials
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Oct 13, 3:37 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In Maxwell's model: "In Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of
Force',
magnetic field strength H was directly equated with pure vorticity (spin),
whereas B was a weighted vorticity that was weighted for the density of
the
vortex sea. Maxwell considered magnetic permeability ? to be a measure of
the density of the vortex sea. "

What is in Heaviside model?
S*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

whatever was written in 1861 was either proved wrong or at least
incomplete. you are 140 years out of date, first year college physics
and electrical engineering fields courses teach stuff that would have
totally amazed maxwell and friends in their simplicity and accuracy.

Thinks are rather a little diferent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

Heaviside wrote:
" It will be understood that I preach the gospel according to my
interpretation of Maxwell.[4]"

" In 1884 he recast Maxwell's mathematical analysis from its original
cumbersome form (they had already been recast as quaternions) to its modern
vector terminology, thereby reducing the original twenty equations in twenty
unknowns down to the four differential equations in two unknowns we now know
as Maxwell's equations. The four re-formulated Maxwell's equations describe
the nature of static and moving electric charges and magnetic dipoles, and
the relationship between the two, namely electromagnetic induction."

But it does not meant that the college physics is 120 years old. In the
teaching programs are all theories.
Electrons and plasma born later and are also in teaching program.
S*

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 13, 2:40*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Oct 13, 3:37 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



In Maxwell's model: "In Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of
Force',
magnetic field strength H was directly equated with pure vorticity (spin),
whereas B was a weighted vorticity that was weighted for the density of
the
vortex sea. Maxwell considered magnetic permeability ? to be a measure of
the density of the vortex sea. "

What is in Heaviside model?
S*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
whatever was written in 1861 was either proved wrong or at least

incomplete. *you are 140 years out of date, first year college physics
and electrical engineering fields courses teach stuff that would have
totally amazed maxwell and friends in their simplicity and accuracy.

Thinks are rather a little diferent:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

Heaviside wrote:

" It will be understood that I preach the gospel according to my
interpretation of Maxwell.[4]"

" In 1884 he recast Maxwell's mathematical analysis from its original
cumbersome form (they had already been recast as quaternions) to its modern
vector terminology, thereby reducing the original twenty equations in twenty
unknowns down to the four differential equations in two unknowns we now know
as Maxwell's equations. The four re-formulated Maxwell's equations describe
the nature of static and moving electric charges and magnetic dipoles, and
the relationship between the two, namely electromagnetic induction."

But it does not meant that *the college physics is 120 years old. In the
teaching programs are all theories.
Electrons and plasma born later and are also in teaching program.
S*

why don't you go buy a modern physics or electromagnetics text,
something printed in the last 25-30 years and get up to date

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 13, 2:20*pm, K1TTT wrote:
why don't you go buy a modern physics or electromagnetics text,
something printed in the last 25-30 years and get up to date

Or get pretty close to up to date with "QED", by Feynman.

"So now, I present to you the three basic actions, from which all the
phenomena of light and electrons arise:

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Antenna materials
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...


Why don't you go buy a modern physics or electromagnetics text,
something printed in the last 25-30 years and get up to date

I know what is in books. I am interesting in the reality. Now I know that in
a cristal radio the electrons flow from an antenna to ground because there
is the diode.

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

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 14, 2:47*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
I know what is in books. I am interesting in the reality. Now I know that in
a cristal radio the electrons flow from an antenna to ground because there
is the diode.

You are confusing the impulse (photonic) flow of EM energy, with the
electron carriers which move hardly at all at HF. Hint: Electrons
cannot move at the speed of light yet we know that EM energy moves at
the speed of light.

In a somewhat similar manner, the impulse energy in a tsunami wave
travels a lot faster than the water molecule carriers which move
mostly up and down. Tsunami waves are hardly noticeable in the open
ocean.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 14, 7:47*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...



Why don't you go buy a modern physics or electromagnetics text,

something printed in the last 25-30 years and get up to date

I know what is in books. I am interesting in the reality. Now I know that in
a cristal radio the electrons flow from an antenna to ground because there
is the diode.

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

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.

Antenna materials
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Oct 14, 2:47 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
I know what is in books. I am interesting in the reality. Now I know that
in
a cristal radio the electrons flow from an antenna to ground because there
is the diode.

You are confusing the impulse (photonic) flow of EM energy, with the
electron carriers which move hardly at all at HF. Hint: Electrons
cannot move at the speed of light yet we know that EM energy moves at
the speed of light.

Air particles move at speed of sound. For this reason the speed of sound is
temperature dependent.
The same must be with electrons. Do not confuse the mean velocity with the
max. In air the mean speed is also close to zero.

In a somewhat similar manner, the impulse energy in a tsunami wave
travels a lot faster than the water molecule carriers which move
mostly up and down.

Water molecules move mostly horizontally. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift

Tsunami waves are hardly noticeable in the open
ocean.

Because tsunami is the simple flow.
S*

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

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 17, 9:28*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...

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*

no, waves can transport energy without mass. photons have not rest
mass, only energy... look that up in your favorite wikipedia. sound
waves require mass, but don't have to transport it, just move it back
and forth around a point, thus they move energy without net movement
of mass.

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 17, 9:36*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Cecil Moore" ...
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

ah, grabbed another non-sequitar term to add to your gibberish now?
for how long will everything be a soliton to you?

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 17, 4:36*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"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

Good Grief! The deeper the ocean, the faster the Tsunami wave travels.
The Tsunami wave slows to a crawl when it reaches land and indeed is
forced by the slope of the land to travel horizontally. Unfortunately
for your argument, I was talking about the speed of a Tsunami wave in
the open ocean which can be as fast as a 757 jet airplane. From:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/tsunami/

"The Speed of a Tsunami: A tsunami can travel at well over 970 kph
(600 mph) in the open ocean - as fast as a jet flies. It can take only
a few hours for a tsunami to travel across an entire ocean. A regular
wave (generated by the wind) travels at up to about 90 km/hr."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930274.html

"For example, at the deepest ocean depths the tsunami wave speed will
be as much as 800 km/h, about the same as that of a jet aircraft.
Since the average depth of the Pacific ocean is 4000 m (14,000 feet) ,
tsunami wave speed will average about 200 m/s or over 700 km/h (500
mph)."

Exactly how much horizontal movement can there be in the water
molecules when the Tsunami wave is moving at 800 km/h (200 m/sec)?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Antenna materials
 

"Cecil Moore"
...
On Oct 17, 4:36 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"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

Good Grief! The deeper the ocean, the faster the Tsunami wave travels.
The Tsunami wave slows to a crawl when it reaches land and indeed is
forced by the slope of the land to travel horizontally. Unfortunately
for your argument, I was talking about the speed of a Tsunami wave in
the open ocean which can be as fast as a 757 jet airplane. From:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/tsunami/

"The Speed of a Tsunami: A tsunami can travel at well over 970 kph
(600 mph) in the open ocean - as fast as a jet flies. It can take only
a few hours for a tsunami to travel across an entire ocean. A regular
wave (generated by the wind) travels at up to about 90 km/hr."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930274.html

"For example, at the deepest ocean depths the tsunami wave speed will
be as much as 800 km/h, about the same as that of a jet aircraft.
Since the average depth of the Pacific ocean is 4000 m (14,000 feet) ,
tsunami wave speed will average about 200 m/s or over 700 km/h (500
mph)."

Exactly how much horizontal movement can there be in the water
molecules when the Tsunami wave is moving at 800 km/h (200 m/sec)?

You are an expert. Electric waves travel with"c".
"Exactly how much horizontal movement can there be in the free electrons
when the electric wave is moving at 300000 km/h?
S*

Antenna materials
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Oct 17, 9:28 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT"
...

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*

no, waves can transport energy without mass. photons have not rest
mass, only energy... look that up in your favorite wikipedia. sound
waves require mass, but don't have to transport it, just move it back
and forth around a point, thus they move energy without net movement
of mass.

So read the Wiki:
"For a pure wave motion in fluid dynamics, the Stokes drift velocity is the
average velocity when following a specific fluid parcel as it travels with
the fluid flow. For instance, a particle floating at the free surface of
water waves, experiences a net Stokes drift velocity in the direction of
wave propagation.
More generally, the Stokes drift velocity is the difference between the
average Lagrangian flow velocity of a fluid parcel, and the average Eulerian
flow velocity of the fluid at a fixed position. This nonlinear phenomenon is
named after George Gabriel Stokes, who derived expressions for this drift in
his 1847 study of water waves."

This nonlinear phenomenon is in each real wave. In texbooks are a paper
waves - for kids. They are linear and symmetric.

"just move it back and forth around a point" is a simplification necessary
in schools.

S*

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 17, 4:06*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Cecil Moore"
...
On Oct 17, 4:36 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"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

Good Grief! The deeper the ocean, the faster the Tsunami wave travels.
The Tsunami wave slows to a crawl when it reaches land and indeed is
forced by the slope of the land to travel horizontally. Unfortunately
for your argument, I was talking about the speed of a Tsunami wave in
the open ocean which can be as fast as a 757 jet airplane. From:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/tsunami/

"The Speed of a Tsunami: A tsunami can travel at well over 970 kph

(600 mph) in the open ocean - as fast as a jet flies. It can take only
a few hours for a tsunami to travel across an entire ocean. A regular
wave (generated by the wind) travels at up to about 90 km/hr."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930274.html

"For example, at the deepest ocean depths the tsunami wave speed will

be as much as 800 km/h, about the same as that of a jet aircraft.
Since the average depth of the Pacific ocean is 4000 m (14,000 feet) ,
tsunami wave speed will average about 200 m/s or over 700 km/h (500
mph)."

Exactly how much horizontal movement can there be in the water

molecules when the Tsunami wave is moving at 800 km/h (200 m/sec)?

You are an expert. Electric waves travel with"c".
"Exactly how much horizontal movement can there be in the free electrons
when the electric wave is moving at 300000 km/h?
S*

very little.

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 17, 4:32*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On Oct 17, 9:28 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"K1TTT"
...

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*
no, waves can transport energy without mass. *photons have not rest

mass, only energy... look that up in your favorite wikipedia. *sound
waves require mass, but don't have to transport it, just move it back
and forth around a point, thus they move energy without net movement
of mass.

So read the Wiki:
"For a pure wave motion in fluid dynamics, the Stokes drift velocity is the
average velocity when following a specific fluid parcel as it travels with
the fluid flow. For instance, a particle floating at the free surface of
water waves, experiences a net Stokes drift velocity in the direction of
wave propagation.
More generally, the Stokes drift velocity is the difference between the
average Lagrangian flow velocity of a fluid parcel, and the average Eulerian
flow velocity of the fluid at a fixed position. This nonlinear phenomenon is
named after George Gabriel Stokes, who derived expressions for this drift in
his 1847 study of water waves."

This nonlinear phenomenon is in each real wave. In texbooks are a paper
waves - for kids. They are linear and symmetric.

"just move it back and forth around a point" is a simplification necessary
in schools.

S*

ah, but that requires fluid flow. electromagnetic waves do not
require fluid flow or they could not travel at c. There may be some
analogous phenomena in plasma where you can get non-linear effects but
they would not propagate at c, they would be at some much smaller
velocity.

Antenna materials
 

On Oct 17, 11:06*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Exactly how much horizontal movement can there be in the free electrons
when the electric wave is moving at 300000 km/h?

Already answered earlier in this thread. For HF frequencies, the
horizontal movement of the electrons is minuscule and they can be
considered to be oscillating in place. It is the photons that move at
the speed of light.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Antenna materials
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Oct 17, 4:32 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

More generally, the Stokes drift velocity is the difference between the
average Lagrangian flow velocity of a fluid parcel, and the average
Eulerian
flow velocity of the fluid at a fixed position. This nonlinear phenomenon
is
named after George Gabriel Stokes, who derived expressions for this drift
in
his 1847 study of water waves."

This nonlinear phenomenon is in each real wave. In texbooks are a paper
waves - for kids. They are linear and symmetric.

"just move it back and forth around a point" is a simplification necessary
in schools.

ah, but that requires fluid flow. electromagnetic waves do not
require fluid flow or they could not travel at c.

EM waves are the torsional vibrations in a solid dielectric. In solids are
the strains. Tiny flows.

There may be some
analogous phenomena in plasma where you can get non-linear effects but
they would not propagate at c, they would be at some much smaller
velocity.

The vector calculus describe only movements.
Ancient people describesd the planet movements. But the planet were
described more later.

The same is with the radio waves. They are still not described physically.
In the description must be words electrons and voltage.
S*

Antenna materials
 

Uzytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Oct 17, 11:06 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Exactly how much horizontal movement can there be in the free electrons
when the electric wave is moving at 300000 km/h?

Already answered earlier in this thread. For HF frequencies, the
horizontal movement of the electrons is minuscule and they can be
considered to be oscillating in place.

Waves are described in the two method: " More generally, the Stokes drift
velocity is the difference between the
average Lagrangian flow velocity of a fluid parcel, and the average
Eulerian flow velocity of the fluid at a fixed position. This nonlinear
phenomenon is named after George Gabriel Stokes, who derived expressions
for this drift in his 1847 study of water waves."

It is the photons that move at the speed of light.

Photons are the math joke.
Electric waves in a medium made of electrons move at the speed of light.
S*