In message
, David
Ryeburn writes
In article
,
BillyBobMarley wrote:
Not to be a smart ass but weren't a lot of the old British cars
equipped with a positive ground? What's up with that?

The electrons come out of the negative end of the battery. The Old Brits
were smart. They didn't want the electrons to jump off of the ends of
the cars, so they tied the positive ends of the batteries to the car
chassis. Except for those cars they exported to Poland ;-) .

In the UK, until around 1970, I think all cars had positive 'ground'. I
would be very surprised if USA cars were any different. I believe that
the reason for this is that it was supposed to reduce corrosion of the
electrical connections.

The change to negative ground seemed to coincide with the introduction
of more equipment with NPN transistors (which were generally designed to
have a positive power feed). For a few years, many car radios had a
polarity switch, and if you moved a radio from your old +ve ground car
to you new -ve ground car, you had to remember to change the switch
over. I recall one works colleague blowing up a rather good radio when
he didn't.

If your car had the old dynamo generator (which once they invariably
did), it was usually very easy to reverse the polarity. To do this, you
simply had to give the field winding of the dynamo a 'splat' of reverse
polarity (which reversed the residual magnetism) and (of course), change
over the battery connections (which sometimes entailed fitting a longer
battery ground cable). As the starter motor was series wound, it still
turned in the same direction.
--
Ian

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Friday, July 20, 2012 1:41:11 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
In physics is only one field.

Strange - the extremely well respected physics book, "Principles of
Optics" written by Born and Wolf talks about the E-field and H-field -
Section 1.4.1 "The general electromagnetic plane wave, page 23, 4th
edition.

I wrote: "That fields and the gravity are only in the textbooks (as e
sperate
chapters).
They are also in engineering."

Heaviside and Pointing assumed: "In this case very near the wire, and within
it, the lines of magnetic force are circles round the axis of the wire. The
lines of electric force are along the wire,"
So they had the result: "The whole of the energy then enters in through the
external surface of the wire, and by the general theorem the amount entering
in must just account for the heat developed owing to the resistance, since
if the current is steady there is no other alteration of energy. It is,
perhaps, worth while to show independently in this case that the energy
moving in, in accordance with the general law, will just account for the
heat developed." From:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the...gnetic_F ield

Is it true now?

"the lines of magnetic force are circles round the axis of the wire" is the
Biot-Savart law.
In physics no magnetic monopoles and no the lines of magnetic force.

If you read the whole article you see that Pointing was full of doubts.
Heavisde was en engineer and Pointing was a teacher:
"Poynting and the Nobel prizewinner J. J. Thomson co-authored a multi-volume
undergraduate physics textbook, which was in print for about 50 years and
was in widespread use during the first third of the 20th century.[5]
Poynting wrote most of it.[6]"

It is not easy to explain physics to children and engineers.
I am not a teacher and a textbook writer.
But I know that the electrons are. Heaviside and Pointing did not that when
they wrote EM.
S*

"David Ryeburn" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
In article
,
BillyBobMarley wrote:
Not to be a smart ass but weren't a lot of the old British cars
equipped with a positive ground? What's up with that?

The electrons come out of the negative end of the battery. The Old Brits
were smart. They didn't want the electrons to jump off of the ends of
the cars, so they tied the positive ends of the batteries to the car
chassis. Except for those cars they exported to Poland ;-) .

The old cars have only a bulbs. There is an Edison effect. The positive
ground is better in such case.
Now you have many electronics devices. For them must be the negative ground.

Step by step and you will be an expert on electrons.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Somebody wrote: http://cb-wlkp.pl/viewtopic.php?t=584
"
Wyslany: 2009-07-22, 23:36
Instalacja anteny dipolowej sklada sie z:
- anteny - promiennik i przeciwwaga, które sa zbudowane z dwóch
jednakowych przewodów, lub kawalków metalu. Z racji tego, ze oba te
elementy sa identyczne (ksztalt, material, dlugosc), maja takie same
parametry - sa symetryczne.
- przewodu zasilajacego - kabel koncentryczny, w którym sygnal
przesylany jest przez zyle wewnetrzna a powraca oplotem ekranu. Oplot i
zyla wewnetrzna maja inny przekrój i ksztalt, a co za tym idzie maja inne
parametry elektryczne (np. impedancje) - sa niesymetryczne. "

As you see in Poland and "here" are the technically UNcompetent
people.

Do you see the difference between the Hertz dipole and the
radioamateur dipole?
S*

Hello chaps.
If Szczepan means "INcompetent" when he wrote "UNcompetent " then I would
have to agree with him and cite him as an example.
I also see that the quote, shown above, is from a CB site and not from an
amateur radio site. [Shall we assume he doesn't know the difference between
amateur radio and CB?]
Google translates it to:
" Installation of a dipole antenna consists of:
- Antenna - radiator and counterweight, which are made up of two
The same wires, or pieces of metal. Because of this, with both elements
Are the same (shape, material, length), have the same characteristics - are
Symmetrical.
- Power cable - coaxial cable in which the signal
Transmitted by wire inner braid and returns the screen. Braid and lived
Have a different inner diameter and shape, and thus have different
Electrical parameters (eg impedance) - are unbalanced. "

Still, Szczepan is good for a laugh.

73, Ian.

"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 20/07/2012 23:47, BillyBobMarley wrote:


Not to be a smart ass but weren't a lot of the old British cars
equipped with a positive ground? What's up with that?


Nothing at all, but -ve ground seemed to take over in the '70's. I seem to
recall that +ve ground did have some advantages for galvanic corrosion.

In a circuit one part is protected and the second is attacked. So the
polarity is not the key issue.

Edison in his DC supply used the 3 wire system. +110V, -110V and neutral.
I do not know what was preffered in the 2 wire.

It seems to me that in overhead wires should be the excess of electrons. In
a storm weather the bulbs shine for free.

Now almost all DC supply systems are like that in the modern car. In the
"live" wire is the deficit of electrons.
S*

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message
, David
Ryeburn writes
In article
,
BillyBobMarley wrote:
Not to be a smart ass but weren't a lot of the old British cars
equipped with a positive ground? What's up with that?

The electrons come out of the negative end of the battery. The Old Brits
were smart. They didn't want the electrons to jump off of the ends of
the cars, so they tied the positive ends of the batteries to the car
chassis. Except for those cars they exported to Poland ;-) .

In the UK, until around 1970, I think all cars had positive 'ground'. I
would be very surprised if USA cars were any different. I believe that
the reason for this is that it was supposed to reduce corrosion of the
electrical connections.

AFAIK, positive ground was never a standard in the USA.

While there may have been some exceptions in the very early days, all the
cars I've seen back to the 20's were negative ground.

I owned some positive ground British cars and there were "challenges", like
arguing with US mechanics that no, the battery wasn't backwards and putting
in anything but a British radio or electric fuel pump.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"David Ryeburn" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
In article
,
BillyBobMarley wrote:
Not to be a smart ass but weren't a lot of the old British cars
equipped with a positive ground? What's up with that?

The electrons come out of the negative end of the battery. The Old Brits
were smart. They didn't want the electrons to jump off of the ends of
the cars, so they tied the positive ends of the batteries to the car
chassis. Except for those cars they exported to Poland ;-) .

The old cars have only a bulbs.

No, they did not.

British cars had positive ground until the 60's.

Radios started appearing in cars in the 30's as well as electric motors.

There is an Edison effect.

The Edison effect is how vacuum tubes work and has nothing to do with cars.

The positive
ground is better in such case.

Having positive or negative ground has no effect on how vacuum tubes or
anything else works, it is simply a matter of convention as to which
side of the power source is concidered chassis.

Now you have many electronics devices. For them must be the negative ground.

No, it is not a matter of "must", it is a matter of convention; either
way will work.

Step by step and you will be an expert on electrons.

Like you?

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about how ANYTHING works.

Everything you wrote here is utter, stupid, babbling, nonsense.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on electromagntics
or even basic electricity in any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 20/07/2012 23:47, BillyBobMarley wrote:


Not to be a smart ass but weren't a lot of the old British cars
equipped with a positive ground? What's up with that?


Nothing at all, but -ve ground seemed to take over in the '70's. I seem to
recall that +ve ground did have some advantages for galvanic corrosion.

In a circuit one part is protected and the second is attacked. So the
polarity is not the key issue.

Edison in his DC supply used the 3 wire system. +110V, -110V and neutral.
I do not know what was preffered in the 2 wire.

It seems to me that in overhead wires should be the excess of electrons. In
a storm weather the bulbs shine for free.

Now almost all DC supply systems are like that in the modern car. In the
"live" wire is the deficit of electrons.
S*

Once again everything you have written is stupid, babbling, nonsensical,
gibberish.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about how ANYTHING works.

You are a laughingstock and a mental case.

I think you are quite insane.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on electromagntics
or anything else for that matter, in any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Friday, July 20, 2012 1:41:11 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
In physics is only one field.

Strange - the extremely well respected physics book, "Principles of
Optics" written by Born and Wolf talks about the E-field and H-field -
Section 1.4.1 "The general electromagnetic plane wave, page 23, 4th
edition.

I wrote: "That fields and the gravity are only in the textbooks (as e
sperate
chapters).
They are also in engineering."

Yes, you did, and it is all stupid, babbling, gibberish with no connection
to the real world

Heaviside and Pointing assumed: "In this case very near the wire, and within
it, the lines of magnetic force are circles round the axis of the wire. The
lines of electric force are along the wire,"
So they had the result: "The whole of the energy then enters in through the
external surface of the wire, and by the general theorem the amount entering
in must just account for the heat developed owing to the resistance, since
if the current is steady there is no other alteration of energy. It is,
perhaps, worth while to show independently in this case that the energy
moving in, in accordance with the general law, will just account for the
heat developed." From:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the...gnetic_F ield

Is it true now?

You are such a moron you don't have a clue wht the above is talking about.

It is refering to DC magnetic fields.

"the lines of magnetic force are circles round the axis of the wire" is the
Biot-Savart law.

In physics no magnetic monopoles and no the lines of magnetic force.

In physics, no magnetic monopole has been found and lines of magenetic
force is a well known concept to everyone but you.

If you read the whole article you see that Pointing was full of doubts.
Heavisde was en engineer and Pointing was a teacher:

Poynting was a physicist, you babbling moron.

"Poynting and the Nobel prizewinner J. J. Thomson co-authored a multi-volume
undergraduate physics textbook, which was in print for about 50 years and
was in widespread use during the first third of the 20th century.[5]
Poynting wrote most of it.[6]"

So what, you babbling idiot, lots of physicists write textbooks.

It is not easy to explain physics to children and engineers.

Actually, it is quite easy to teach normal children and engineers, but
it would be impossible to teach anything to a moron like you.

I am not a teacher and a textbook writer.

No, you are a babbling moron.

But I know that the electrons are.

You don't know what ANYTHING is.

Heaviside and Pointing did not that when
they wrote EM.
S*

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about how ANYTHING works.

You don't even understand what an antenna is or the difference between
an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field.

Electrostatic and magnetostatic fields are created by DC.

An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
teminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna
and also coverts the electromagnetic energy which antenna intercepts
into AC electrical energy at it's terminals.

That is ELECTROMAGNETIC energy, not magnetostatic nor electrostatic
energy.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law

"The Biot-Savart law is fundamental to magnetostatics, playing a similar
role to Coulomb's law in electrostatics. When magnetostatics does not
apply, the Biot-Savart law should be replaced by Jefimenko's equations."

What that means, you babbling idiot, is that Jefimenko's equations apply
to antennas, not the Biot-Savart law or Coulomb's law.

Jefimenko's equations were first published in the 1960's so anything
written before then is essentially irrelevant to a discussion of antennas.

Since an antenna is defined in terms of it's terminals, anything that
may be connected to the terminals, such as a balun or a transmission
line, has NOTHING to do with what the antenna is or how the antenna
operates.

What that means is that ONLY the voltage at the antenna terminals
effect what is going to happen, NOT how the voltage got there.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on electromagntics
in any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 3:07:49 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Heaviside and Pointing assumed: "In this case very near the wire, and within
it, the lines of magnetic force are circles round the axis of the wire. The
lines of electric force are along the wire,"

Yes, that's the way coherent photons orient themselves around a wire carrying RF energy. We can forgive Heaviside and Poynting for being ignorant of photons but today, some of us have alleviated our ignorance.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com