UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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?

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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?

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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?

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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.

Where can I find the knowledge on photons?
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Where can I find the knowledge on photons?
S*

Hello Szczepan.
Best place to learn about photons would be one of the physics or science
newsgroups.
Regards, Ian.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Where can I find the knowledge on photons?

Here's a pretty good overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_quantum

For information on EM radiation, superposition, and interference, I would recommend:

"Optics", 4th edition, by Eugene Hecht, available from www.abebooks.com
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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.

Where can I find the knowledge on photons?
S*

University level textbooks.

Ooops, I forgot.

You are a babbling moron incapable of reading a textbook in any language,
thus you will always remain an ignorant, babbling, idiot.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Where can I find the knowledge on photons?

Here's a pretty good overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_quantum

Father of photon wrote:
"Had there not seemed to be insuperable objections, one might have been
tempted to adopt the hypothesis that we are dealing here with a new type of
atom, an identifiable entity, uncreatable and indestructible, which acts as
the carrier of radiant energy and, after absorption, persists as an
essential constituent of the absorbing atom until it is later sent out again
bearing a new amount of energy. If I now advance this hypothesis of a new
kind of atom, I do not claim that it can yet be proved, but only that a
consideration of the several objections that might be adduced shows that
there is not one of them that can not be overcome."
http://www.nobeliefs.com/photon.htm

Is it proved?


For information on EM radiation, superposition, and interference, I would
recommend:

"Optics", 4th edition, by Eugene Hecht, available from www.abebooks.com

"8 Polarization 319"

Could you look at this?

Is in Hecht's the polarised light as the transverse wave (Fresnel,
Heaviside) or,

The longitudinal waves transmitted from the two sources (dipole) (Faraday,
Lorenz, Tesla).
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Where can I find the knowledge on photons?

Here's a pretty good overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_quantum

Father of photon wrote:
"Had there not seemed to be insuperable objections, one might have been
tempted to adopt the hypothesis that we are dealing here with a new type of
atom, an identifiable entity, uncreatable and indestructible, which acts as
the carrier of radiant energy and, after absorption, persists as an
essential constituent of the absorbing atom until it is later sent out again
bearing a new amount of energy. If I now advance this hypothesis of a new
kind of atom, I do not claim that it can yet be proved, but only that a
consideration of the several objections that might be adduced shows that
there is not one of them that can not be overcome."
http://www.nobeliefs.com/photon.htm

Is it proved?

Yes; proved wrong like all your other babbling nonsense.

Once again you drag up crap written nearly 100 years ago that has long
been proven to be false.

You are a moron.

For information on EM radiation, superposition, and interference, I would
recommend:

"Optics", 4th edition, by Eugene Hecht, available from www.abebooks.com

"8 Polarization 319"

Could you look at this?

Is in Hecht's the polarised light as the transverse wave (Fresnel,
Heaviside) or,

The longitudinal waves transmitted from the two sources (dipole) (Faraday,
Lorenz, Tesla).
S*

You question is pure, meaningless, babble.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about anything.

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 in any language?

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:20:15 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Is it proved?

Yes, proved to be pure fantasy. The Standard Model is as close to reality as we have gotten so far. The modern-day atom smashers have proved just how ignorant the speculations of the earlier physicists really were.

"8 Polarization 319" Could you look at this?

In my 4th edition, Chapter 8 starts on page 325. The first sentence says: "... light may be treated as a transverse electromagnetic wave." Nowhere does it say that light may be treated as a longitudinal wave.
--

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:20:15 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Is it proved?

Yes, proved to be pure fantasy. The Standard Model is as close to reality
as we have gotten so far. The modern-day atom smashers have proved just
how ignorant the speculations of the earlier physicists really were.

"8 Polarization 319" Could you look at this?

In my 4th edition, Chapter 8 starts on page 325. The first sentence says:
"... light may be treated as a transverse electromagnetic wave." Nowhere
does it say that light may be treated as a longitudinal wave.

"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light, while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel

As you see the Fresnel model is simpler than Young.
In the texbooks are only simple things.

The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts".
S*


--

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:20:15 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Is it proved?

Yes, proved to be pure fantasy. The Standard Model is as close to reality
as we have gotten so far. The modern-day atom smashers have proved just
how ignorant the speculations of the earlier physicists really were.

"8 Polarization 319" Could you look at this?

In my 4th edition, Chapter 8 starts on page 325. The first sentence says:
"... light may be treated as a transverse electromagnetic wave." Nowhere
does it say that light may be treated as a longitudinal wave.

"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light, while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel

Yeah, so what?

Light can be viewed as a transverse electromagnetic wave, that has been
established.

As you see the Fresnel model is simpler than Young.

Actually, no it is not, but it is all mute as that crap is almost
200 years old and knowledge, except for yours, has improved greatly
since then.

In the texbooks are only simple things.

How would you know, you babbling moron, you have never read one
because even high school level textbooks are to difficult for you
to understand.

The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts".

Nope, this just shows how stupid, ignorant, and ineducable you are, moron.

Light may also be treated as photons.

You are so utterly stupid you will NEVER be able to understand that
elecromagnetic radiation can be viewed both as waves or photons.

You are a babbling idiot and a laughingstock.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts".

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far. Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century physics. Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less ignorant than 19th century folk.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On 7/22/2012 5:14 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote:"light may be treated". MAY
instead"Without of any doubts".

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far. Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century physics. Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less ignorant than 19th century folk.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

But authors then said different. They say things that are not agreed to
by author today who no knowing what they are meaning.

Or something like that.

tom
K0TAR

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light,
while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could
be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel


Light may also be treated as photons.

Yes. In one chapter as waves and in the next as particles.

But it means only that you do not know what the light is.
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts";.

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know
that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the
additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned
experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge
builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support
the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far.
Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have
progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century
physics.

The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.

Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less
ignorant than 19th century folk.

In XX century was done the first rectenna: "A rectenna is a rectifying
antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert microwave energy
into direct current electricity. "
In XXI century are the optical rectennas.

But the first were the crystal radio:
"The simplest crystal radio receiver, employing an antenna and a
demodulating diode (rectifier), is actually a rectenna".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

You wrote "latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best
"knowledge" that we have so far".

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Every time yet another post on this subject arrives, I can't help
thinking of the limerick about the 'Young man of Devizes' (a small town
in Wiltshire, England). Those who have no idea what I'm talking about
can Google.

Perhaps there's a similar one about a radio amateur whose dipole had
unequal wire sizes?
--
Ian

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.

In XX century was done the first rectenna: "A rectenna is a rectifying
antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert microwave
energy into direct current electricity. "
In XXI century are the optical rectennas.

But the first were the crystal radio:
"The simplest crystal radio receiver, employing an antenna and a
demodulating diode (rectifier), is actually a rectenna".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

You wrote "latest theories that support the latest experiments are the
best "knowledge" that we have so far".

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.
S*
Oh dear! The Wiki page tells us that a rectenna converts microwave energy
then says, inconsistently, that crystal radios (which operate on MW and LW)
are rectennas.
I think the rectenna was mentioned by Szczepan several months ago - are we
going around the loop once more?

Is it worth commenting about scientific method, theory and fact?
I'll say that reading Szczepan's postings makes a good spectator sport.

73, Ian.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:37:23 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.

But that has since been proved not to be a fact, i.e. their theory has been disproved. Just as Issac Newton's discoveries were a little off, so were the "Giants" about which you speak. In RF conductors, electrons do oscillate but they are much too slow to "flow". I can crawl on my knees faster than electrons flow in a wire and that has been proved by actual measurements. The RF fields/waves that are flowing around a conductor at the speed of light are photons like the ones you are using to read this screen, just at a different frequency. When you realize what is the nature of the thing that is incident upon your retina, you will understand EM radiation.

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

The one that agrees with the latest experimental measurements. Einstein's theory that gravity curves space was just a theory until proved valid by actual experimental measurements. The CERN Large Hadron Collider is providing actual experimental measurements as we speak. If the measurements disagree with the Standard Model, we will have to change the Standard Model.

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.

We will probably never know all the "facts" - the best we can do is become less ignorant. All of our models of reality exist in human minds filtered through human senses none of which are perfect. For instance, entangled particles seem to violate the spirit of the speed of light limit, yet they have been proved to exist by experiments. And how is it possible for a huge carbon Buckyball to pass through two slots at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side? Seems to me that the particle is creating a wavefront in the structure of space.

The best models are the ones that best match the latest experimental evidence. Some of yours do not match the latest experimental evidence at all, i.e.. seems that you are deliberately choosing to remain ignorant (or just pulling our legs).
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Every time yet another post on this subject arrives, I can't help thinking
of the limerick about the 'Young man of Devizes' (a small town in
Wiltshire, England). Those who have no idea what I'm talking about can
Google.

Perhaps there's a similar one about a radio amateur whose dipole had
unequal wire sizes?

"End-Fed Center-Fed Dipole (AKA Coaxial Vertical Dipole)

Really, that description is correct. Primarily constructed with coaxial
cable the one half wave vertical dipole is fed from its bottom but the coax
shield is left in place only up to near the center point (about ¼ wave but
the exact end point for terminating the shielding is determined by tuning)
which becomes the actual "feed-point" ergo, the description. The center
conductor continues up for about ¼ wave past the point of termination of the
shield." From:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ter-Fed-Dipole

Are the wires equal or unequal?
Is it dipole, monopole or "dipole"?
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light,
while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could
be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel


Light may also be treated as photons.

Yes. In one chapter as waves and in the next as particles.

What in the hell are you babbling about with "one chapter" and "next"?

But it means only that you do not know what the light is.

Everyone but you knows what light is.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about anything.

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 anything
in any language?

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts";.

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know
that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the
additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned
experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge
builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support
the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far.
Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have
progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century
physics.

The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.

The "Giants" were wrong, light is no such thing, and you are a moron.

Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less
ignorant than 19th century folk.

In XX century was done the first rectenna: "A rectenna is a rectifying
antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert microwave energy
into direct current electricity. "
In XXI century are the optical rectennas.

Irrelevant to anything to do with the nature of light.

But the first were the crystal radio:
"The simplest crystal radio receiver, employing an antenna and a
demodulating diode (rectifier), is actually a rectenna".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

Irrelevant to anything to do with the nature of light other than to show
light and radio waves have the same properties.

You wrote "latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best
"knowledge" that we have so far".

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

Generally, the latest ones which have more experiments and data to back
them up.

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.

To be Szczepan Bialek means to be an ignorant, ineducable, moron.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about antennas or how they work.

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

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.

A rectenna is simply an antenna with something that acts as a diode at
it's terminals to convert the AC to DC.

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 anthing
in any language?

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:37:23 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow
of
electrons.

But that has since been proved not to be a fact, i.e. their theory has been
disproved. Just as Issac Newton's discoveries were a little off, so were
the "Giants" about which you speak. In RF conductors, electrons do
oscillate but they are much too slow to "flow".

They jump off from the end (corona) after the time equal to speed of light.
They do not flow from the transmitter to the end of antenna. They kick the
next ones. It is the oscillatory flow.

I can crawl on my knees faster than electrons flow in a wire and that has
been proved by actual measurements. The RF fields/waves that are flowing
around a conductor at the speed of light are photons like the ones you are
using to read this screen, just at a different frequency. When you realize
what is the nature of the thing that is incident upon your retina, you
will understand EM radiation.

In textbooks are Heaviside's and Pointing's EM. Are They Giants?

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

The one that agrees with the latest experimental measurements. Einstein's
theory that gravity curves space was just a theory until proved valid by
actual experimental measurements. The CERN Large Hadron Collider is
providing actual experimental measurements as we speak. If the measurements
disagree with the Standard Model, we will have to change the Standard
Model.

Hertz did the experimental measurements of waves from the dipole
(polarisation, refraction etc.)
Do you know something about the Marconi antenna?

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.

We will probably never know all the "facts" - the best we can do is become
less ignorant. All of our models of reality exist in human minds filtered
through human senses none of which are perfect. For instance, entangled
particles seem to violate the spirit of the speed of light limit, yet they
have been proved to exist by experiments. And how is it possible for a huge
carbon Buckyball to pass through two slots at the same time and interfere
with itself on the other side? Seems to me that the particle is creating a
wavefront in the structure of space.

The best models are the ones that best match the latest experimental
evidence. Some of yours do not match the latest experimental evidence at
all, i.e. seems that you are deliberately choosing to remain ignorant (or
just pulling our legs).

The papers of Giants are now available. Try to compare the papers by
Heaviside-Pointing and Dirac.
Dirac was an engineer so he was tought on Heaviside-Pointing's EM. Dirac
never even mentioned EM.

Ia trying to pull you from the textbooks (where all is simplified) to the
paper of Giants.
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Every time yet another post on this subject arrives, I can't help thinking
of the limerick about the 'Young man of Devizes' (a small town in
Wiltshire, England). Those who have no idea what I'm talking about can
Google.

Perhaps there's a similar one about a radio amateur whose dipole had
unequal wire sizes?

"End-Fed Center-Fed Dipole (AKA Coaxial Vertical Dipole)

Really, that description is correct. Primarily constructed with coaxial
cable the one half wave vertical dipole is fed from its bottom but the coax
shield is left in place only up to near the center point (about ? wave but
the exact end point for terminating the shielding is determined by tuning)
which becomes the actual "feed-point" ergo, the description. The center
conductor continues up for about ? wave past the point of termination of the
shield." From:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ter-Fed-Dipole

You haven't the slightest clue what any of this means.

Are the wires equal or unequal?

A stupid question from a moron that doesn't have the slightest clue
what any of this means.

Is it dipole, monopole or "dipole"?

There is no difference between a dipole and a "dipole".

The antenna in question is a monopole with a complex feed system.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about anything.

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 anything
in any language?

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:37:23 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow
of
electrons.

But that has since been proved not to be a fact, i.e. their theory has been
disproved. Just as Issac Newton's discoveries were a little off, so were
the "Giants" about which you speak. In RF conductors, electrons do
oscillate but they are much too slow to "flow".

They jump off from the end (corona) after the time equal to speed of light.
They do not flow from the transmitter to the end of antenna. They kick the
next ones. It is the oscillatory flow.

But EM waves also propagate in environments where the electrons are
too far apart to kick eachother. How do you explain that?

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

They jump off from the end (corona) after the time equal to speed of light.
They do not flow from the transmitter to the end of antenna. They kick the
next ones. It is the oscillatory flow.

You have been told time and time again that there is no corona in normal
antenna operation.

You have been told time and time again that "oscillatory flow" is 19th
century nonsense.

Why do you yet again repeat all this nonsense?

Why do you keep arguing with people who have hundreds of years of collective
experience and many with engineering and science degrees, all of whom
have told you this is nonsense?

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about anything.

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 anything
in any language?

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

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


"End-Fed Center-Fed Dipole (AKA Coaxial Vertical Dipole)

Really, that description is correct. Primarily constructed with coaxial
cable the one half wave vertical dipole is fed from its bottom but the
coax
shield is left in place only up to near the center point (about ? wave
but
the exact end point for terminating the shielding is determined by
tuning)
which becomes the actual "feed-point" ergo, the description. The center
conductor continues up for about ? wave past the point of termination of
the
shield." From:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ter-Fed-Dipole


Is it dipole, monopole or "dipole"?

The antenna in question is a monopole with a complex feed system.

Are all dipoles the monopoles?
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:37:23 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow
of
electrons.

But that has since been proved not to be a fact, i.e. their theory has
been
disproved. Just as Issac Newton's discoveries were a little off, so were
the "Giants" about which you speak. In RF conductors, electrons do
oscillate but they are much too slow to "flow".

They jump off from the end (corona) after the time equal to speed of
light.
They do not flow from the transmitter to the end of antenna. They kick
the
next ones. It is the oscillatory flow.

But EM waves also propagate in environments where the electrons are
too far apart to kick each other. How do you explain that?

W5DXP wrote; "In RF conductors, electrons do oscillate but they are much too
slow to "flow".
In conductors is a lot of electrons.

EM waves are in textbooks. The electron waves propagate in plasma. There is
also a lot of electrons.
Everything what fall down on the Sun is "reworked" into plasma.
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

They jump off from the end (corona) after the time equal to speed of
light.
They do not flow from the transmitter to the end of antenna. They kick
the
next ones. It is the oscillatory flow.

You have been told time and time again that there is no corona in normal
antenna operation.

But is in unnormal operation. When it is seen?
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Are all dipoles the monopoles?
S*

Are you really this blazingly stupid that you would ask such a moronic
question or are you insane?

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


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.

Radiates waves or photons or something else?

A rectenna is simply an antenna with something that acts as a diode at
it's terminals to convert the AC to DC.

In AC electrons oscillate. In DC electrons are flowing for ages.
Where they come from?
S*

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

W5DXP wrote; "In RF conductors, electrons do oscillate but they are much too
slow to "flow".
In conductors is a lot of electrons.

EM waves are in textbooks. The electron waves propagate in plasma. There is
also a lot of electrons.
Everything what fall down on the Sun is "reworked" into plasma.
S*

Are you really this stupid that you would post this nonsense or are
you insane?

Maybe you are just drunk all the time.

Which is it; stupid, insane, or drunk?

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

They jump off from the end (corona) after the time equal to speed of
light.
They do not flow from the transmitter to the end of antenna. They kick
the
next ones. It is the oscillatory flow.

You have been told time and time again that there is no corona in normal
antenna operation.

But is in unnormal operation. When it is seen?
S*

A babbling Polish idiots with his head up his ass.