A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 5, 9:03*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "Richard Clark" napisal w wiadomoscinews:u89pk6h54h100lo96fs2h8mjog6fhfdean@ 4ax.com...

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:17:00 -0800 (PST), K1TTT wrote:

i thought that rather than going to wikipedia or somewhere else it was
more appropriate to quote from the maxwell bio on the same website
mr.B used to get his quote.

This only works for a rational discussion.

S* is only interested in pursuing agitprop, the failure of a decandent
counter-cultural ideology.
You wrote: "Yes, indeed it does matter who is "writing history." *The

quotation
above is, in fact, quite wrong."

So the best approach is to take a glance into the original papers.
In Maxwell's model the magnetic lines are like the smoke rings. Nothing flow
along them.
In Heaviside's model there is the solenoidal flow.

It is not simplification. The both models are quite different.

But the both are a history.

Your radio waves travel in rare plasma. It is interesting that Faraday
predicted it.
S*

they may travel through a rare plasma, but the rare plasma is not
needed for their propagation. they also travel through dense matter
like glass, but the glass is not needed for their propagation.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Feb 5, 9:03 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Richard Clark" napisal w
wiadomoscinews:u89pk6h54h100lo96fs2h8mjog6fhfdean@ 4ax.com...

: "Yes, indeed it does matter who is "writing history." The quotation
above is, in fact, quite wrong."

So the best approach is to take a glance into the original papers.
In Maxwell's model the magnetic lines are like the smoke rings. Nothing
flow
along them.
In Heaviside's model there is the solenoidal flow.

It is not simplification. The both models are quite different.

But the both are a history.

Your radio waves travel in rare plasma. It is interesting that Faraday
predicted it.
S*

they may travel through a rare plasma, but the rare plasma is not
needed for their propagation. they also travel through dense matter
like glass, but the glass is not needed for their propagation.

"The velocity of light through space is about 190,000 miles in a second; the
velocity of electricity is, by the experiments of Wheatstone, shown to be as
great as this,"

For this reason Faraday concluded: " "I suppose we may compare together the
matter of the aether
and ordinary matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire through which
the electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike in their essential
constitution; i.e. either as both composed of little nuclei, considered in
the abstract as matter"

Everywhere are "nuclei" (electrons).

You simply do not read Faraday.

He also described a dipole: " For suppose two bodies, A B, distant from each
other and under mutual action, and therefore connected by lines of force,
and let us fix our attention upon one resultant of force, having an
invariable direction as regards space; if one of the bodies move in the
least degree right or left, or if its power be shifted for a moment within
the mass (neither of these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be
either electric or magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral
disturbance will take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our
attention; for, either it will increase in force whilst the neighboring
results are diminishing, or it will fall in force as they are increasing."

" if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass" = if electrons
oscillate in a dipole.

Wimpie mentioned a monopole. Dipole = two monopole.

What does monopole radiate?

In your antennas and in the space are free electrons. We do not need a
mystery TEM..
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On 2/5/2011 11:18 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Wimpie mentioned a monopole. Dipole = two monopole.

What does monopole radiate?


Depends. If the monopole is pointed upwards, it radiates positive half
cycles of RF. If pointed downwards, negative half cycles are radiated.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 5, 5:30*pm, John - KD5YI wrote:
On 2/5/2011 11:18 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Wimpie mentioned a monopole. Dipole = two monopole.

What does monopole radiate?

Depends. If the monopole is pointed upwards, it radiates positive half
cycles of RF. If pointed downwards, negative half cycles are radiated.

what about if it is horizontal??? or as art prefers, tipped at some
angle??

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 5, 5:18*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Feb 5, 9:03 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Richard Clark" napisal w
wiadomoscinews:u89pk6h54h100lo96fs2h8mjog6fhfdean@ 4ax.com...





: "Yes, indeed it does matter who is "writing history." The *quotation
above is, in fact, quite wrong."

So the best approach is to take a glance into the original papers.
In Maxwell's model the magnetic lines are like the smoke rings. Nothing
flow
along them.
In Heaviside's model there is the solenoidal flow.

It is not simplification. The both models are quite different.

But the both are a history.

Your radio waves travel in rare plasma. It is interesting that Faraday
predicted it.
S*
they may travel through a rare plasma, but the rare plasma is not

needed for their propagation. *they also travel through dense matter
like glass, but the glass is not needed for their propagation.

"The velocity of light through space is about 190,000 miles in a second; the
velocity of electricity is, by the experiments of Wheatstone, shown to be as
great as this,"

For this reason Faraday concluded: " "I suppose we may compare together the
matter of the aether
and ordinary matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire through which
the electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike in their essential
constitution; i.e. either as both composed of little nuclei, considered in
the abstract as matter"

Everywhere are "nuclei" (electrons).

You simply do not read Faraday.

He also described a dipole: " For suppose two bodies, A B, distant from each
other and under mutual action, and therefore connected by lines of force,
and let us fix our attention upon one resultant of force, having an
invariable direction as regards space; if one of the bodies move in the
least degree right or left, or if its power be shifted for a moment within
the mass (neither of these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be
either electric or magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral
disturbance will take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our
attention; for, either it will increase in force whilst the neighboring
results are diminishing, or it will fall in force as they are increasing."

" if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass" = if electrons
oscillate in a dipole.

Wimpie mentioned a monopole. Dipole = two monopole.

What does monopole radiate?

In your antennas and in the space are free electrons. We do not need a
mystery TEM..
S*

Faraday was proven wrong many times by much later experiments... the
same for all other aether models. EM waves do not need aether or your
free electrons.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:29:34 -0800 (PST), K1TTT wrote:

Faraday was proven wrong many times by much later experiments.

It would be interesting to see one such example.

Faraday's classic "The Chemical History of a Candle" may be expressed
in archaic language (not really that archaic once you get into the
vernacular), but it is an example of extremely clear analysis and
instruction. There is absolutely nothing wrong anywhere in that
recital.

Faraday examined the properties of induction - action at a distance -
in equally archaic terms, but with scientifically rigorous methods.
The archaic language was confined to terms of invention. Phlogiston,
as both a term and concept, was an invented word that was current
during his life.

I am sure he used the Phlogiston in correspondence with those who
understood its context. However, the nature of that correspondence
reveals that neither party "believed" in it as a force of nature, and
merely used the term and concept as a touchstone insofar as it was a
focus of debate.

In other words, for them the debate was over and Phlogiston was an
intellectual dead-end, but the focus of the underlying question it was
supposed to have answered was a question still being discussed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On 2/5/2011 12:27 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On Feb 5, 5:30 pm, John - wrote:
On 2/5/2011 11:18 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Wimpie mentioned a monopole. Dipole = two monopole.

What does monopole radiate?

Depends. If the monopole is pointed upwards, it radiates positive half
cycles of RF. If pointed downwards, negative half cycles are radiated.

what about if it is horizontal??? or as art prefers, tipped at some
angle??

Depends on which way it's pointing. If North, positive half cycles go
West and negative half cycles go East.

If it is tipped to an undefined angle, the positive and negative half
cycles get confused and the electrons refuse to jump off. This makes it
good only for receiving.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 5, 11:25*pm, John - KD5YI wrote:
On 2/5/2011 12:27 PM, K1TTT wrote:

On Feb 5, 5:30 pm, John - *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 11:18 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Wimpie mentioned a monopole. Dipole = two monopole.

What does monopole radiate?

Depends. If the monopole is pointed upwards, it radiates positive half
cycles of RF. If pointed downwards, negative half cycles are radiated.

what about if it is horizontal??? * or as art prefers, tipped at some
angle??

Depends on which way it's pointing. If North, positive half cycles go
West and negative half cycles go East.

If it is tipped to an undefined angle, the positive and negative half
cycles get confused and the electrons refuse to jump off. This makes it
good only for receiving.

ah, that would be good for art since nobody wants to hear what he has
to say anyway.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "Richard Clark" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:29:34 -0800 (PST), K1TTT wrote:

Faraday was proven wrong many times by much later experiments.

It would be interesting to see one such example.

Faraday's classic "The Chemical History of a Candle" may be expressed
in archaic language (not really that archaic once you get into the
vernacular), but it is an example of extremely clear analysis and
instruction. There is absolutely nothing wrong anywhere in that
recital.

Faraday examined the properties of induction - action at a distance -
in equally archaic terms, but with scientifically rigorous methods.
The archaic language was confined to terms of invention.

I see that you understand the Faraday's " archaic language ".
You know also that Faraday newer was wrong.
And, "Yes, indeed it does matter who is "writing history."

In a history by S. Errede is wrote: "Faraday inspired by his discovery of
the magnetic rotation of thinks that it might be transverse vibrations of
his beloved field lines"

Is Errede right?

Faraday wrote: " It seems to me, that the resultant of two or more lines of
force is in an apt condition for that action which may be considered as
equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform medium, like the
aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water."

For me he wrote: "The resultant of two or more monopoles is equivalent to a
lateral vibrations".

Phlogiston,
as both a term and concept, was an invented word that was current
during his life.

I am sure he used the Phlogiston in correspondence with those who
understood its context. However, the nature of that correspondence
reveals that neither party "believed" in it as a force of nature, and
merely used the term and concept as a touchstone insofar as it was a
focus of debate.

In other words, for them the debate was over and Phlogiston was an
intellectual dead-end, but the focus of the underlying question it was
supposed to have answered was a question still being discussed.

Like the "if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass (neither of
these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be either electric or
magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral disturbance will
take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our attention.."

What your dipole prodce: TEM waves or "an effect equivalent to a lateral
disturbance " ?
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 6, 9:18*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "Richard Clark" napisal w wiadomoscinews:vp8rk6l7d0f4nj2kupb1qtha3s1fh32l8u@ 4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:29:34 -0800 (PST), K1TTT wrote:

Faraday was proven wrong many times by much later experiments.

It would be interesting to see one such example.

Faraday's classic "The Chemical History of a Candle" may be expressed
in archaic language (not really that archaic once you get into the
vernacular), but it is an example of extremely clear analysis and
instruction. *There is absolutely nothing wrong anywhere in that
recital.

Faraday examined the properties of induction - action at a distance -
in equally archaic terms, but with scientifically rigorous methods.
The archaic language was confined to terms of invention.

I see that you understand the Faraday's " archaic language ".
You know also that Faraday newer was wrong.
And, "Yes, indeed it does matter who is "writing history."

In a history by S. Errede is wrote: "Faraday inspired by his discovery of
the magnetic rotation of thinks that it might be transverse vibrations of
his beloved field lines"

Is Errede right?

Faraday wrote: " It seems to me, that the resultant of two or more lines of

force is in an apt condition for that action which may be considered as
equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform medium, like the
aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water."

For me he wrote: "The resultant of two or more monopoles is *equivalent to a

lateral vibrations".

Phlogiston,
as both a term and concept, was an invented word that was current
during his life.

I am sure he used the Phlogiston in correspondence with those who
understood its context. *However, the nature of that correspondence
reveals that neither party "believed" in it as a force of nature, and
merely used the term and concept as a touchstone insofar as it was a
focus of debate.

In other words, for them the debate was over and Phlogiston was an
intellectual dead-end, but the focus of the underlying question it was
supposed to have answered was a question still being discussed.

Like the "if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass (neither of
these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be either electric or
magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral disturbance will
take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our attention.."

What your dipole prodce: TEM waves or "an effect equivalent to a lateral
disturbance " ?
S*

you must remember, that just because any of those old guys wrote
something it doesn't mean that they believed it even a year later.
they were all putting up theories and trying to connect electricity
and magnetism with just about anything else for many years. it was
even many years before anyone figured out that electricity and
magnetism were related. you would learn much more by using a modern
text that has filtered out all the theories that were thrown away than
reading the raw conjectures of early theorists.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

"K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Feb 6, 9:18 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Like the "if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass (neither
of
these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be either electric or
magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral disturbance will
take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our attention.."

What your dipole prodce: TEM waves or "an effect equivalent to a lateral
disturbance " ?
S*

you must remember, that just because any of those old guys wrote
something it doesn't mean that they believed it even a year later.
they were all putting up theories and trying to connect electricity
and magnetism with just about anything else for many years. it was
even many years before anyone figured out that electricity and
magnetism were related. you would learn much more by using a modern
text

In modern text is wrote that dipoles are polarised and multipoles arrays are
phased..

that has filtered out all the theories that were thrown away than
reading the raw conjectures of early theorists.

In textbooks are theories with math. Faraday described an ideas.
His idea without an aether and with the electrons seems to be correct.
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 6, 5:24*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Feb 6, 9:18 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



Like the "if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass (neither
of
these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be either electric or
magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral disturbance will
take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our attention.."

What your dipole prodce: TEM waves or "an effect equivalent to a lateral
disturbance " ?
S*
you must remember, that just because any of those old guys wrote

something it doesn't mean that they believed it even a year later.
they were all putting up theories and trying to connect electricity
and magnetism with just about anything else for many years. *it was
even many years before anyone figured out that electricity and
magnetism were related. *you would learn much more by using a modern
text

In modern text is wrote that dipoles are polarised and multipoles arrays are
phased..

that has filtered out all the theories that were thrown away than

reading the raw conjectures of early theorists.

In textbooks are theories with math. Faraday described an ideas.
His idea without an aether and with the electrons seems to be correct.
S*

it may seem to be to you, but it isn't. look at maxwell's equations,
there is no need for free charge for propagating waves.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On 2/6/2011 11:24 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci


you must remember, that just because any of those old guys wrote
something it doesn't mean that they believed it even a year later.
they were all putting up theories and trying to connect electricity
and magnetism with just about anything else for many years. it was
even many years before anyone figured out that electricity and
magnetism were related. you would learn much more by using a modern
text

In modern text is wrote that dipoles are polarised and multipoles arrays are
phased..


And your comment here implies something? You have stated nothing.

tom
K0TAR

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 2/6/2011 11:24 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci


you must remember, that just because any of those old guys wrote
something it doesn't mean that they believed it even a year later.
they were all putting up theories and trying to connect electricity
and magnetism with just about anything else for many years. it was
even many years before anyone figured out that electricity and
magnetism were related. you would learn much more by using a modern
text

In modern text is wrote that dipoles are polarised and multipoles arrays
are
phased..


And your comment here implies something? You have stated nothing.

In Heaviside's model waves are polarised. It means that the waves are
transversal (rotational vibrations). The medium is a solid dielectric.

In Faraday model the two or more sources of pressure waves produce effect
equivalent to the transverse waves.
In Faraday's electrons no transverse waves. Are such in wires?
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 7, 8:03*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomoscinews:4d4f5d60$0$87580$8046368a@newsreade r.iphouse.net...



On 2/6/2011 11:24 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
* *napisal w wiadomosci

you must remember, that just because any of those old guys wrote
something it doesn't mean that they believed it even a year later.
they were all putting up theories and trying to connect electricity
and magnetism with just about anything else for many years. *it was
even many years before anyone figured out that electricity and
magnetism were related. *you would learn much more by using a modern
text

In modern text is wrote that dipoles are polarised and multipoles arrays
are
phased..

And your comment here implies something? *You have stated nothing.

In Heaviside's model waves are polarised. It means that the waves are
transversal (rotational vibrations). The medium is a solid dielectric.

In Faraday model the two or more sources of pressure waves produce effect
equivalent to the transverse waves.
In Faraday's electrons no transverse waves. Are such in wires?
S*

as long as you continue to live in the 1800's you will never learn the
truth.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On 2/7/2011 11:40 AM, K1TTT wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:03 am, "Szczepan wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomoscinews:4d4f5d60$0$87580$8046368a@newsreade r.iphouse.net...



On 2/6/2011 11:24 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci

you must remember, that just because any of those old guys wrote
something it doesn't mean that they believed it even a year later.
they were all putting up theories and trying to connect electricity
and magnetism with just about anything else for many years. it was
even many years before anyone figured out that electricity and
magnetism were related. you would learn much more by using a modern
text

In modern text is wrote that dipoles are polarised and multipoles arrays
are
phased..

And your comment here implies something? You have stated nothing.

In Heaviside's model waves are polarised. It means that the waves are
transversal (rotational vibrations). The medium is a solid dielectric.

In Faraday model the two or more sources of pressure waves produce effect
equivalent to the transverse waves.
In Faraday's electrons no transverse waves. Are such in wires?
S*

as long as you continue to live in the 1800's you will never learn the
truth.


Being ignorant is not so shameful as being unwilling to learn.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

"John - KD5YI" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 2/7/2011 11:40 AM, K1TTT wrote:

In Heaviside's model waves are polarised. It means that the waves are
transversal (rotational vibrations). The medium is a solid dielectric.

In Faraday model the two or more sources of pressure waves produce
effect
equivalent to the transverse waves.
In Faraday's electrons no transverse waves. Are such in wires?
S*

as long as you continue to live in the 1800's you will never learn the
truth.


Being ignorant is not so shameful as being unwilling to learn.

Yes and no. I am an ignorant but I am here to learn.

It seems to me that Faraday model fits to todays radio. Why not?
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 8, 8:37*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"John - KD5YI" napisal w ...



On 2/7/2011 11:40 AM, K1TTT wrote:

In Heaviside's model waves are polarised. It means that the waves are
transversal (rotational vibrations). The medium is a solid dielectric..

In Faraday model the two or more sources of pressure waves produce
effect
equivalent to the transverse waves.
In Faraday's electrons no transverse waves. Are such in wires?
S*

as long as you continue to live in the 1800's you will never learn the
truth.

Being ignorant is not so shameful as being unwilling to learn.

Yes and no. I am an ignorant but I am here to learn.

It seems to me that Faraday model fits to todays radio. Why not?
S*

because it is wrong? at least the stuff that you quote is. faraday
did make a contribution to maxwell's equations, but not anything that
required an aether or free electrons flying around.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 8, 12:37*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
....
Yes and no. I am an ignorant but I am here to learn.

It's a noble goal, but this is, perhaps, not the best place for you to
to do that...

Cheers,
Tom

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On 2/8/2011 2:37 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Being ignorant is not so shameful as being unwilling to learn.

Yes and no. I am an ignorant but I am here to learn.

It seems to me that Faraday model fits to todays radio. Why not?
S*



You seem to be resisting learning from those who know much better than
you. I would suggest you stop resisting, start listening and begin
learning.

I hate to be pessimistic, but I doubt you will do even 1 of the 3
suggestions.

tom
K0TAR

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomosci
et...
On 2/8/2011 2:37 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Being ignorant is not so shameful as being unwilling to learn.

Yes and no. I am an ignorant but I am here to learn.

It seems to me that Faraday model fits to todays radio. Why not?
S*

You seem to be resisting learning from those who know much better than
you. I would suggest you stop resisting, start listening and begin
learning.

I hate to be pessimistic, but I doubt you will do even 1 of the 3
suggestions.

Asking questions is not resisting. Two years ago Richard C. wrote:

"Actually you have mixed up two different characteristics. Polarity
and polarization are NOT the same thing. With RF radiation, the wave
is constantly changing polarity (that is why the source of RF is
called alternating current), but within the "line of sight" of the
antenna, the polarization for a dipole is defined by its angle to the
earth as viewed by the observer.

If you see an horizontal dipole, it produces alternating polarities of
waves with horizontal polarization. If you see a vertical dipole, it
produces alternating polarities of waves with vertical polarization.

RF energy is ALWAYS changing polarity."

Can a monopole produce "polarisation"?
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:39:17 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

Can a monopole produce "polarisation"?

PolariZation.

A vertical monopole is vertically polarized when viewed in isolation
of other reflectors at a distance of many, many wavelengths.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On 10/02/2011 18:13, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:39:17 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

Can a monopole produce "polarisation"?

PolariZation.

A vertical monopole is vertically polarized when viewed in isolation
of other reflectors at a distance of many, many wavelengths.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"polarisation" is a perfectly acceptable spelling of the word (except
perhaps in the US).

Jeff

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "Richard Clark" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:39:17 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

Can a monopole produce "polarisation"?

PolariZation.

A vertical monopole is vertically polarized when viewed in isolation
of other reflectors at a distance of many, many wavelengths.

To be polarized must be the two poles (nodes). Long wire antennas have many
nodes and the directional pattern.
Is it right?
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Hi everyone,

better be prudent when challenging a Polish on mathematical issues!

http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/vi...oles/poles.htm

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 11, 4:38*pm, "Antonio Vernucci" wrote:
Hi everyone,

better be prudent when challenging a Polish on mathematical issues!

http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/vi...oles/poles.htm

Tony I0JX
Rome, Italy

somehow i don't think mr.b is in that class.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:33:34 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

To be polarized must be the two poles (nodes)

The tip of a monopole and its base are its two nodes. A monopole is
polarized.

This is a very simple lesson to learn.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 11, 8:04*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:33:34 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"

wrote:
To be polarized must be the two poles (nodes)

The tip of a monopole and its base are its two nodes. *A monopole is
polarized.

This is a very simple lesson to learn.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

but, but, but, the base is a voltage minimum, not the opposite peak
voltage of the top!!! how can that form two nodes to make the
electrons jump opposite directions? this just can't be true! this
must only be half polarity polarisation.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

wrote:
To be polarized must be the two poles (nodes)

The tip of a monopole and its base are its two nodes. *A monopole is
polarized.

This is a very simple lesson to learn.

but, but, but, the base is a voltage minimum, not the opposite peak
voltage of the top!!! how can that form two nodes to make the
electrons jump opposite directions? this just can't be true! this
must only be half polarity polarisation.

What? Is this Oliver Twist in reverse polish notation?

"Please, sir, can I have another node?"

Yes, you have fully anticipated an objection in its juvenile form.
This can be countered (after asking for a hand to be held out for
switching):
Pick any potential reference point along the
length of the quarter wave monopole;
every point above it will have the opposite polarity
of any point below it - ergo, two nodes are described
each on either side of the reference.

I hope I don't have to explain that using batteries and resistors (it
may present a challenge in introducing advanced electronic concepts).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:33:34 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"

wrote:
To be polarized must be the two poles (nodes)

The tip of a monopole and its base are its two nodes. A monopole is
polarized.

This is a very simple lesson to learn.


but, but, but, the base is a voltage minimum, not the opposite peak
voltage of the top!!! how can that form two nodes to make the
electrons jump opposite directions? this just can't be true! this
must only be half polarity polarisation.

Half polarity = no polarity.

The field emission take place where the voltage exists. But at the end the
voltage is doubled (standing wave). So the strong radiation is only from the
nodes.
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "Richard Clark" napisal w wiadomosci
...
wrote:
To be polarized must be the two poles (nodes)

The tip of a monopole and its base are its two nodes. A monopole is
polarized.

This is a very simple lesson to learn.

but, but, but, the base is a voltage minimum, not the opposite peak
voltage of the top!!! how can that form two nodes to make the
electrons jump opposite directions? this just can't be true! this
must only be half polarity polarisation.

What? Is this Oliver Twist in reverse polish notation?

"Please, sir, can I have another node?"

Yes, you have fully anticipated an objection in its juvenile form.
This can be countered (after asking for a hand to be held out for
switching):
Pick any potential reference point along the
length of the quarter wave monopole;
every point above it will have the opposite polarity
of any point below it - ergo, two nodes are described
each on either side of the reference.

Such situation is also close to the base. But there no voltage. No voltage
no field emission. On the quarter wave monopole is only one place with very,
very high voltage. The dipole has the two.

I hope I don't have to explain that using batteries and resistors (it
may present a challenge in introducing advanced electronic concepts).

The "shape" of the node effects the emission. Thin wire radiate in different
direction than a hat .
But in the elongated node every point have the same polarity.

Faraday is great.
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 12, 8:55*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Richard Clark wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:33:34 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"

wrote:
To be polarized must be the two poles (nodes)

The tip of a monopole and its base are its two nodes. A monopole is
polarized.

This is a very simple lesson to learn.
but, but, but, the base is a voltage minimum, not the opposite peak

voltage of the top!!! *how can that form two nodes to make the
electrons jump opposite directions? *this just can't be true! *this
must only be half polarity polarisation.

Half polarity = no polarity.

The field emission take place where the voltage exists. But at the end the
voltage is doubled (standing wave). So the strong radiation is only from the
nodes.
S*

so if there is only a single high voltage point at the top how is it
vertically polarized and how does it radiate at all without the other
half of the dipole?

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 12, 9:15*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "Richard Clark" napisal w wiadomoscinews:n2pbl6h129opr3fres80nm3h8bt4e691vf@ 4ax.com...



wrote:
To be polarized must be the two poles (nodes)

The tip of a monopole and its base are its two nodes. A monopole is
polarized.

This is a very simple lesson to learn.

but, but, but, the base is a voltage minimum, not the opposite peak
voltage of the top!!! *how can that form two nodes to make the
electrons jump opposite directions? *this just can't be true! *this
must only be half polarity polarisation.

What? *Is this Oliver Twist in reverse polish notation?

"Please, sir, can I have another node?"

Yes, you have fully anticipated an objection in its juvenile form.
This can be countered (after asking for a hand to be held out for
switching):
Pick any potential reference point along the
length of the quarter wave monopole;
every point above it will have the opposite polarity
of any point below it - ergo, two nodes are described
each on either side of the reference.

Such situation is also close to the base. *But there no voltage. No voltage
no field emission. On the quarter wave monopole is only one place with very,
very high voltage. The dipole has the two.



I hope I don't have to explain that using batteries and resistors (it
may present a challenge in introducing advanced electronic concepts).

The "shape" of the node effects the emission. Thin wire radiate in different
direction than a hat .
But in the elongated node every point have the same polarity.

Faraday is great.
S*

but on the other half of the sine wave the polarity is reversed...
then what happens? do the electrons get sucked back in?

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Feb 12, 9:15 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

The "shape" of the node effects the emission. Thin wire radiate in
different
direction than a hat .
But in the elongated node every point have the same polarity.


but on the other half of the sine wave the polarity is reversed...
then what happens? do the electrons get sucked back in?

Of course. But the longitudine waves transport mass (electrons) and are not
symmetric. Jumping off is stronger than sucking back.
Tesla discovered the catode rays (electrons) jumping off from the antenna
end. It is the net DC ground current. Why you do not to measure it.
It is known how to collect the catode rays.
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

"K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Feb 12, 8:55 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

The field emission take place where the voltage exists. But at the end
the
voltage is doubled (standing wave). So the strong radiation is only from
the
nodes.
S*

so if there is only a single high voltage point at the top how is it
vertically polarized and how does it radiate at all without the other
half of the dipole?

You probably have seen the CB radio. On the end of the whip is alternate
high voltage. It radiate the longitudinal electric waves. The other half of
a dipole is chassis (car). Is there any polarisation?
S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On Feb 12, 6:06*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Feb 12, 9:15 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



The "shape" of the node effects the emission. Thin wire radiate in
different
direction than a hat .
But in the elongated node every point have the same polarity.

but on the other half of the sine wave the polarity is reversed...

then what happens? *do the electrons get sucked back in?

Of course. But the longitudine waves transport mass (electrons) and are not
symmetric. Jumping off is stronger than sucking *back.
Tesla discovered the catode rays (electrons) jumping off from the antenna
end. It is the net DC ground current. Why you do not to measure it.
It is known how to collect the catode rays.
S*

i have tried, there is no dc ground current.

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On 2/12/2011 12:06 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Of course. But the longitudine waves transport mass (electrons) and are not
symmetric. Jumping off is stronger than sucking back.

Tesla is not applicable here, an antenna is not a cathode and does not
act like one. Neither is it made of a material that is cathodic at room
temperature.

So where else does it say the current is asymmetrical?

tom
K0TAR

A small riddle, just for fun
 

On 2/12/2011 12:23 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Feb 12, 8:55 am, "Szczepan wrote:

The field emission take place where the voltage exists. But at the end
the
voltage is doubled (standing wave). So the strong radiation is only from
the
nodes.
S*

so if there is only a single high voltage point at the top how is it
vertically polarized and how does it radiate at all without the other
half of the dipole?

You probably have seen the CB radio. On the end of the whip is alternate
high voltage. It radiate the longitudinal electric waves. The other half of
a dipole is chassis (car). Is there any polarisation?
S*



There sure is. It is typical to see 20dB or so loss when you rotate a
dipole receiving from a vertical ground plane CB antenna from vertical
to horizontal.

From a car it may not be truly vertical because of the body, but it is
still easy to detect.

tom
K0TAR

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 2/12/2011 12:06 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Of course. But the longitudine waves transport mass (electrons) and are
not
symmetric. Jumping off is stronger than sucking back.

Tesla is not applicable here, an antenna is not a cathode and does not act
like one. Neither is it made of a material that is cathodic at room
temperature.

Field emission works at each temperature and each material. It is voltage
and temperature dependent. Also: "How would the ideal field emitter look
like? It should be very long and very thin, made of conductive material with
high mechanical strength, be robust, and cheap and easy to process."

So where else does it say the current is asymmetrical?

The emission current from AC lines is. But there the electrons flow to
ground. In the lines no open circuit.
In open circuit the voltage is doubled (at least) at the end. If some
electrons jump off than the suction voltage is lower. If an antenna radiate
the VSWR is low = some electrons do not come back.

In the giant Warsaw dipole was: "In the lower half of the mast, there was a
vertical steel tube, attached to the mast's outer structure with large
insulators. This tube was grounded at the bottom, and connected electrically
to the mast structure at half the total height. This technique works by
applying a DC ground at a point of minimum radiofrequency voltage,
conducting static charge to ground without diminishing the radio energy.
Static electrical charge can build up to high values, even at times of no
thunderstorm activity, when such tall structures are insulated from ground.

Guess why the static charge is build up?

S*

A small riddle, just for fun
 

Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomosci
et...
On 2/12/2011 12:23 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Feb 12, 8:55 am, "Szczepan wrote:

The field emission take place where the voltage exists. But at the end
the
voltage is doubled (standing wave). So the strong radiation is only from
the
nodes.
S*

so if there is only a single high voltage point at the top how is it
vertically polarized and how does it radiate at all without the other
half of the dipole?

You probably have seen the CB radio. On the end of the whip is alternate
high voltage. It radiate the longitudinal electric waves. The other half
of
a dipole is chassis (car). Is there any polarisation?
S*



There sure is. It is typical to see 20dB or so loss when you rotate a
dipole receiving from a vertical ground plane CB antenna from vertical to
horizontal.

The transmmiting "cold catode" is thin and long. It radiate the alternate
electric field perpendicular to its length. Receiving antenna also have the
best direction to collect electrons.

From a car it may not be truly vertical because of the body, but it is
still easy to detect.

Polarisation is linear, circular, eleptical. Could you produce it by
rotation of monopole?
S*