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 *you are 140 years out of date, first year college physics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

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

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*

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

"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*

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

"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*

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.

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

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.