On 7/3/2012 1:09 PM, wrote:
Ian wrote:
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .


AC is in a transformer.
In an antenna is the oscillatory flow of electrons. So there is the net
flow of electrons.

"It is now known that this device operated by emitting electrons from the
single electrode through a combination of field electron emission and
thermionic emission.[citation needed] Once liberated, electrons are
strongly repelled by the high electric field near the electrode during
negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output of the Tesla Coil"

Do not you know that?
S*

Szczepan seems to be muddling up valves and aerials. I guess there's no
point in trying to explain the difference between the two to him. Didn't he
make a similar posting a few months ago?

73, Ian.

He has been posting his idiotic crap for years and years both here and in
sci.phyics.electromag.

No matter what you tell him his response will be a pile of babbling word
salad like the above and a reference to something written over a hundred
years ago and perhaps a misinterpreted link to a Wiki article about
something else that has some similar words in it.

References to textbooks mean nothing to him as he believes all "teachers"
are in a conspiracy to hide the truth.

He thinks Feynman was a "teacher" and not credible.

Yeah, Feynman was a teacher like Mozart was a piano player.


Then why not just ignore him?

"John S" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2012 1:09 PM, wrote:

Then why not just ignore him?

We (the group excluding Szczepan) have some good discussions.
Szczepan can be amusing in the views he puts forward. I can't work out
whether he is trying to tease us or really is confused.

I suppose there's also the hope that Szczepan might read and understand the
information that some of us are showing him. It's a bit like trying to
explain radio to a youngster except that a youngster will listen and learn.
Szczepan's idea of using a well to get an infinite supply of electrons made
me smile. We've a lot of disused coal pits in my part of England and it
would be great to turn them into electron mines. We could dispense with coal
fired power stations, wind turbines, solar cells.
Not sure if the electrons would be packed in bottles (like water) or in
sacks (like coal).


73, Ian.

Ian wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2012 1:09 PM, wrote:

Then why not just ignore him?

We (the group excluding Szczepan) have some good discussions.
Szczepan can be amusing in the views he puts forward. I can't work out
whether he is trying to tease us or really is confused.

I suppose there's also the hope that Szczepan might read and understand the
information that some of us are showing him. It's a bit like trying to
explain radio to a youngster except that a youngster will listen and learn.

I think it is not productive to reply to every posting with "you are
a babbling idiot". That is not going to convince him that he is, and
it just annoys the others.

When you ask him real questions, he either does not answer or he digs up
some prehistoric finding that may have been accurate at that time, but
can easily be disproven today.

For example, his theory that an antenna acts like a vacuum diode, emitting
electrons during one phase of the HF voltage and not taking them back
during the next phase, clearly must be wrong. If it were true, an antenna
would be a nonlinear element that would cause intermodulation. As we
don't see that happen on a well-designed antenna (it *does* happen when
there are bad contacts with diode-effect in the antenna), we know that
an antenna by itself cannot be nonlinear and so there cannot be a net
flow of electrons.

He cannot dispute that so he wanders of in a different direction.

"Rob" wrote in message
...

I think it is not productive to reply to every posting with "you are
a babbling idiot". That is not going to convince him that he is, and
it just annoys the others.

When you ask him real questions, he either does not answer or he digs up
some prehistoric finding that may have been accurate at that time, but
can easily be disproven today.

For example, his theory that an antenna acts like a vacuum diode, emitting
electrons during one phase of the HF voltage and not taking them back
during the next phase, clearly must be wrong. If it were true, an antenna
would be a nonlinear element that would cause intermodulation. As we
don't see that happen on a well-designed antenna (it *does* happen when
there are bad contacts with diode-effect in the antenna), we know that
an antenna by itself cannot be nonlinear and so there cannot be a net
flow of electrons.

He cannot dispute that so he wanders of in a different direction.

Hello Rob.
I can't answer your point about the "babbling idiot" postings as I'm not the
one who makes them.
Szczepan reminds me of an elderly relative who grew up in the 1920s when
electronics was large components on wooden baseboards. They seemed to be
developed from mechanical engineering (see if and understand it). It was a
challenge to get the relative to understand that any progress had been made
since the days of valves. Szczepan seems to have grasped electronics as
being the movement of electrons and has muddled that up with air or liquid
flow.
Initially, I hoped that a polite explanation would help him but after a few
weeks I realised that he's not capable of understanding and learning (always
assuming that he isn't an Extra Class licensee having a big laugh - which is
why I enjoy the humour in his postings).
He seems to go around in circles lasting several weeks - I think that the
thoughts in some of his recent postings are similar to ones he made a month
or more ago.

73, Ian.

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

Szczepan seems to have grasped electronics as being the movement of
electrons and has muddled that up with air or liquid flow.

In EM the electricity is like the LIQUID flow ( incompressible and massles).
In electronics is GAS flow. Electron gas. Electrons have mass.

Do you see the difference between massive GAS and massles LIQUID?
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

Szczepan seems to have grasped electronics as being the movement of
electrons and has muddled that up with air or liquid flow.

In EM the electricity is like the LIQUID flow ( incompressible and
massles).
In electronics is GAS flow. Electron gas. Electrons have mass.

Do you see the difference between massive GAS and massles LIQUID?
S*
Szczepan, you say that liquids are massles (I assume that you means
massless). This is definitely wrong. Thanks for the laugh.
Regards, Ian.

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

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

Szczepan seems to have grasped electronics as being the movement of
electrons and has muddled that up with air or liquid flow.

In EM the electricity is like the LIQUID flow ( incompressible and
massles).
In electronics is GAS flow. Electron gas. Electrons have mass.

Do you see the difference between massive GAS and massles LIQUID?
S*
Szczepan, you say that liquids are massles (I assume that you means
massless). This is definitely wrong. Thanks for the laugh.

In 1884 Heavisde wrote the EM. He assumed that electricity and magnetism are
like the massless liquid.
S*

"Ian" wrote in message
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

Szczepan seems to have grasped electronics as being the movement of
electrons and has muddled that up with air or liquid flow.

In EM the electricity is like the LIQUID flow ( incompressible and
massles).
In electronics is GAS flow. Electron gas. Electrons have mass.

Do you see the difference between massive GAS and massles LIQUID?
S*
Szczepan, you say that liquids are massles (I assume that you means
massless). This is definitely wrong. Thanks for the laugh.
Regards, Ian.


Imagine what the price of gasoline/petrol would be if it had any mass. Oy!

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...

Szczepan seems to have grasped electronics as being the movement of
electrons and has muddled that up with air or liquid flow.

In EM the electricity is like the LIQUID flow ( incompressible and massles).
In electronics is GAS flow. Electron gas. Electrons have mass.

Do you see the difference between massive GAS and massles LIQUID?
S*

This is just word salad nonsense.

There is no such thing as a massles (sic) liquid.

You are a babbling idiot.

How about Bud Light? Does it approach masslessness? :-)

Irv VE6BP

wrote in message
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...

Szczepan seems to have grasped electronics as being the movement of
electrons and has muddled that up with air or liquid flow.

In EM the electricity is like the LIQUID flow ( incompressible and
massles).
In electronics is GAS flow. Electron gas. Electrons have mass.

Do you see the difference between massive GAS and massles LIQUID?
S*

This is just word salad nonsense.

There is no such thing as a massles (sic) liquid.

You are a babbling idiot.