Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 16th 10, 09:17 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 707
Default 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*


  #2   Report Post  
Old October 16th 10, 11:49 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 484
Default 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.
  #3   Report Post  
Old October 17th 10, 10:28 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 707
Default 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*


  #4   Report Post  
Old October 17th 10, 12:15 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 484
Default 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.
  #5   Report Post  
Old October 17th 10, 05:32 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 707
Default 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*






  #6   Report Post  
Old October 17th 10, 05:55 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 484
Default 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.
  #7   Report Post  
Old October 18th 10, 08:37 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 707
Default 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*


  #8   Report Post  
Old October 16th 10, 05:16 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 572
Default 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
  #9   Report Post  
Old October 17th 10, 10:36 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 707
Default 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


  #10   Report Post  
Old October 17th 10, 12:17 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2010
Posts: 484
Default 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?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Easy way to learn English ***** download materials [email protected] Shortwave 0 June 21st 08 06:02 AM
Antenna Building Materials Vince Antenna 15 May 9th 05 08:53 PM
Reference Materials Wanted Brian Short Shortwave 1 January 27th 05 10:24 PM
Reference Materials Wanted Brian Short Scanner 0 January 27th 05 10:04 PM
RF transmission through various materials David Harper Antenna 11 June 24th 04 10:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017