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.