On 6/28/2012 2:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
. net...

And of course there is the real problem. If he claims antennas work by
radiating electrons, why do insulated wires work?

I am going to love this answer.

Light (and radio waves) are the oscillatory flow of electrons (L. Lorenz
1869).

Glass, ice and water are insulators.
As you probably know the wires insulated with the water do not work.

Yes they do actually.

You can also put salt water in an insulating glass tube and use it as an
antenna.

It is the wave lenght dependent.

What is?

S*



You did not answer the question. I will restate it.

How can a wire that is completely insulated with respect to electrons
radiate an RF signal?

An additional question.

Since radio waves, according to you, are made up of electrons, how do
radios receive and transmit inside building which are made of insulating
and nonconducting glass and concrete?

tom
K0TAR

"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 6/28/2012 2:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Light (and radio waves) are the oscillatory flow of electrons (L. Lorenz
1869).

Glass, ice and water are insulators.
As you probably know the wires insulated with the water do not work.

Yes they do actually.

A wire coated with the melting ice do not work.

You can also put salt water in an insulating glass tube and use it as an
antenna.

Is it used by U-boots?

It is the wave lenght dependent.

What is?

In the salt water works only the ULF.

You did not answer the question. I will restate it.

How can a wire that is completely insulated with respect to electrons
radiate an RF signal?

No insulators to make a wire that is completely insulated with respect to
electrons. It is the material, thickness and frequency dependent.


An additional question.

Since radio waves, according to you, are made up of electrons, how do
radios receive and transmit inside building which are made of insulating
and nonconducting glass and concrete?

Light (and radio waves) are made up of electrons, according to Faraday, L.
Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac.
The conductance is the frequency dependent.
The light travel in the glass fibre but do not travel in a copper wire.
S*

On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:38:18 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Light (and radio waves) are made up of electrons, according to Faraday, L.
Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac.

Please find a time machine and go back to the time when physicists were so ignorant that they believed such nonsense.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:38:18 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Light (and radio waves) are made up of electrons, according to Faraday,
L.
Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac.

Please find a time machine and go back to the time when physicists were so
ignorant that they believed such nonsense.

EM waves are older than Tesla and Dirac:
"In the year 1884 Oliver Heaviside selected these four equations, and in
conjunction with Willard Gibbs, he put them into modern vector notation.
This gives rise to the claim by some scientists that Maxwell's equations are
in actual fact Heaviside's equations.
The matter is further confused by the fact that the term 'Maxwell's
Equations' is also used to describe a set of eight equations labelled (A) to
(H) in Maxwell's 1864 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field.
It therefore helps when referring to 'Maxwell's Equations' to specify
whether we are talking about the original eight equations or the modified
'Heaviside Four'.

Gauss's Law is the only equation that appears in both sets, however the
Maxwell/Ampère equation in the 'Heaviside Four' is an amalgamation of two
equations in the original eight." From:
http://users.aims.ac.za/~franckm/Maxwell's_equations.html

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.

The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

Faraday, L. Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac were ignorant?

S*.

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field" and
"oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.


Kindest regards, Ian.

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_region

and "oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.

In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJd...page&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
forward motions of particles of aether."
If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive motion
of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".

Each wave is the oscillatory flow:
"Stokes drift may occur in all instances of oscillatory flow which are
inhomogeneous in space."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift

The " backward and forward motions of particles" are always not simmetric.
The forward is always stronger.
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_region

and "oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.

In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the

No one care; it is 2012.

vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJd...page&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
forward motions of particles of aether."
If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive motion
of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".

Each wave is the oscillatory flow:
"Stokes drift may occur in all instances of oscillatory flow which are
inhomogeneous in space."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift

The " backward and forward motions of particles" are always not simmetric.
The forward is always stronger.
S*

Just a big pile of babbling, word salad, gibberish.

You are an idiot.

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_region

and "oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.

In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJd...page&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:


The " backward and forward motions of particles" are always not simmetric.
The forward is always stronger.
S*

Hello Szczepan .
I see you aren't able to explain "oscillatory flow of electrons" in your
own words.
With " backward and forward motions of particles" I would have asked
"backwards and forwards relative to what" but I suspect that you can't
explain this in your own words.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:03:53 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJd...page&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
forward motions of particles of aether."

The aether drift theory was disproven in 1905 (as published by
Michelson and Morley):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Please try to keep up to date:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


snip

In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"


"Stokes drift may occur in all instances of oscillatory flow which are
inhomogeneous in space."


Yes, all this is true, but you did not address the central question, which
was, "Is it warmer in the summertime or in the city?"

Are you posting in the correct thread?