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.

"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*

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.

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*

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

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.

"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*