common mode current
 

"Boomer" napisal w wiadomosci
...

BTW Szczepan, I have a loop antenna for low band. The electrons go around
in a circle and I recycle them. This saves a huge amount on my electric
bill.

"I prefer to feed them directly with coax at a corner and situated in a
diamond configuration when hung verticle but, you can feed them in the
center of either side.
"A little known fact is that you can add a half wavelength of wire behind
the loop instead of the closed loop. This comes in handy where supports are
not abundant."

From: http://ku4ay.net/loop.html

The electrons oscillate in the loop and collide in the nodes.

In that places the voltage is doubled and the electrons jump off.

Somebody wrote here that the current radiate.

In all AC circuits the same current if flowing in the live conductor and in
the ground (return).

Can 0V radiate?

S*

common mode current
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Somebody wrote here that the current radiate.

In all AC circuits the same current if flowing in the live conductor and in
the ground (return).

Can 0V radiate?

That is why it only radiates when the currents do not flow in the
opposite direction!

So, a balanced feeder line with two parallel wires carrying the HF current
(in opposite directions) does not radiate.

But in a dipole antenna, the currents in the two wires do flow in the
same direction. So a dipole radiates.

common mode current
 

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:30:02 AM UTC-5, Rob wrote:
But in a dipole antenna, the currents in the two wires do flow in the
same direction. So a dipole radiates.

Sorry, there are two currents, forward and reflected, flowing in opposite directions on a standing wave antenna. A 1/2WL dipole is a standing wave antenna where the SWR at the ends is infinite and the SWR at the feedpoint is ~20:1. There is forward and reflected wave energy flow on each element of the dipole. At the ends of the 1/2WL dipole the forward and reflected currents are 180 degrees out of phase and equal in magnitude so they phasor add to zero, i.e. a standing wave current minimum (null). Since the forward and reflected current phasors rotate in opposite directions, they are in phase at the feedpoint and phasor add (constructively interfere) to a standing wave current maximum (loop) and most of the radiation is from the center of the antenna.

The feedpoint impedance of a dipole is Zfp = (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) phasor math.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

common mode current
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Boomer" napisal w wiadomosci
...

BTW Szczepan, I have a loop antenna for low band. The electrons go around
in a circle and I recycle them. This saves a huge amount on my electric
bill.

"I prefer to feed them directly with coax at a corner and situated in a
diamond configuration when hung verticle but, you can feed them in the
center of either side.
"A little known fact is that you can add a half wavelength of wire behind
the loop instead of the closed loop. This comes in handy where supports are
not abundant."

From: http://ku4ay.net/loop.html

The electrons oscillate in the loop and collide in the nodes.

Electrons don't collide; you are a babbling idiot.

In that places the voltage is doubled and the electrons jump off.

Electrons don't jump off; you are a babbling idiot.

Somebody wrote here that the current radiate.

Nobody here wrote that; you are a babbling idiot.

In all AC circuits the same current if flowing in the live conductor and in
the ground (return).

Utter, meaningless, babble.

Can 0V radiate?

Voltages don't radiate; you are a babbling idiot.


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?

common mode current
 

On 7/11/2012 3:18 PM, Ian wrote:
"Boomer" wrote in message
...
Ian, I am pretty advanced in years. I am 69. I can remember a comedian
whose name escapes me. He got paid good money for coming on stage and
talking just like Szczepan. I think it would be a gas for him to address a
large gathering of amateur radio operators. He could have us all in
stitches in a few seconds.

I get a fair amount of entertainment value just reading his posts. Some of
them are laugh out loud moments for me. I don't know whether his is truly
that ignorant or is just having fun with us. It doesn't matter. He is
funny.

BTW Szczepan, I have a loop antenna for low band. The electrons go around
in a circle and I recycle them. This saves a huge amount on my electric
bill.

Michael

Michael

Hello Michael. From where I am sitting, 69 isn't all that old. I have
friends heading for 90 who are definitely not showing their age.
Was the comedian a Brit named Stanley Unwin or an American named Fred ???
73, Ian.



I just can't remember Ian.

Michael

common mode current
 

Boomer wrote:
On 7/11/2012 3:18 PM, Ian wrote:
"Boomer" wrote in message
...
Ian, I am pretty advanced in years. I am 69. I can remember a comedian
whose name escapes me. He got paid good money for coming on stage and
talking just like Szczepan. I think it would be a gas for him to address a
large gathering of amateur radio operators. He could have us all in
stitches in a few seconds.

[snip]
Michael

Hello Michael. From where I am sitting, 69 isn't all that old. I have
friends heading for 90 who are definitely not showing their age.
Was the comedian a Brit named Stanley Unwin or an American named Fred ???
73, Ian.

I just can't remember Ian.

Michael

Pretty sure you are talking about Professor Irwin Corey "The World's Foremost Authority".

http://www.irwincorey.org

He's 95 and still working - I'd hurry if you want him...

Brett

common mode current
 

In article ,
says...

Was the comedian a Brit named Stanley Unwin or an American named
Fred ???
73, Ian.



I just can't remember Ian.

Michael

Stanley Unwin's your man. Before he became a comedian, he was a BBC
transmitter engineer, so he was one of us...

http://www.stanleyunwin.com/home2.htm

By us, of course, I don't include Szczepan. My feeing is that he's
either :

1 Far gone with senile dementia OR
2 An academic troll who's been winding up Usenet groups for years

I think (2) is more likely - dementia is progressive, and I'd expect
Szczepan's ramblings to get gradually more and more incoherent. Instead
there is a strangely consistent quality to them.

Anyway, I killfiled him years ago.

common mode current
 

In message , Gaius
writes
In article ,
says...

Was the comedian a Brit named Stanley Unwin or an American named
Fred ???
73, Ian.



I just can't remember Ian.

Michael

Stanley Unwin's your man. Before he became a comedian, he was a BBC
transmitter engineer, so he was one of us...

http://www.stanleyunwin.com/home2.htm

By us, of course, I don't include Szczepan. My feeing is that he's
either :

1 Far gone with senile dementia OR
2 An academic troll who's been winding up Usenet groups for years

I think (2) is more likely - dementia is progressive, and I'd expect
Szczepan's ramblings to get gradually more and more incoherent. Instead
there is a strangely consistent quality to them.

So you don't reckon he could also be a computer, programmed to carry out
the Turing Test?

Anyway, I killfiled him years ago.

Where's the fun in that? In this sad world, we often need a bit of
light-hearted relief and amusement.
--
ian

common mode current
 

Gaius wrote:
In article ,
says...

Was the comedian a Brit named Stanley Unwin or an American named
Fred ???
73, Ian.



I just can't remember Ian.

Michael

Stanley Unwin's your man. Before he became a comedian, he was a BBC
transmitter engineer, so he was one of us...

http://www.stanleyunwin.com/home2.htm

By us, of course, I don't include Szczepan. My feeing is that he's
either :

1 Far gone with senile dementia OR
2 An academic troll who's been winding up Usenet groups for years

I think (2) is more likely - dementia is progressive, and I'd expect
Szczepan's ramblings to get gradually more and more incoherent. Instead
there is a strangely consistent quality to them.

Anyway, I killfiled him years ago.


Possiblility 3; he's not very bright and he's bat **** crazy.

common mode current
 

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
...
In message , Gaius
writes

Anyway, I killfiled him years ago.

Where's the fun in that? In this sad world, we often need a bit of
light-hearted relief and amusement.

I am here to learn. To learn English.
I do my best.
But I do not understand why in your antennas no electrons.
S*

common mode current
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
...
In message , Gaius
writes

Anyway, I killfiled him years ago.

Where's the fun in that? In this sad world, we often need a bit of
light-hearted relief and amusement.

I am here to learn. To learn English.

Learn this English; you are a stupid, ignorant, argumentative, babbling,
ineducable idiot.

If you really want to learn English, read newspapers, magazines, and watch
TV and movies in English.

I do my best.

I would hate to see what your less than best is.

But I do not understand why in your antennas no electrons.

That is because you are a stupid, ignorant, argumentative, babbling,
ineducable idiot than instead of listening and learning argues with people
with hundreds of years of combined experience.

You also refuse to read, and reread until you really understand it, any
modern material on electromagnetics, whether from Wiki or University
level textbooks, in ANY language.

You are a joke and a laughingstock.

common mode current
 

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


But I do not understand why in your antennas no electrons.

That is because you are a stupid, ignorant, argumentative, babbling,
ineducable idiot than instead of listening and learning argues with people
with hundreds of years of combined experience.

You also refuse to read, and reread until you really understand it, any
modern material on electromagnetics,

In electromagnetics also no electrons. Why?
S*

common mode current
 

wrote in message
...
Gaius wrote:

By us, of course, I don't include Szczepan. My feeing is that he's
either :

1 Far gone with senile dementia OR
2 An academic troll who's been winding up Usenet groups for years

I think (2) is more likely - dementia is progressive, and I'd expect
Szczepan's ramblings to get gradually more and more incoherent. Instead
there is a strangely consistent quality to them.

Anyway, I killfiled him years ago.


Possiblility 3; he's not very bright and he's bat **** crazy.

Hello chaps.

Regardless of the reason for his postings, Szczepan is good for a laugh (and
I don't mean that in a nasty way) and the occasional good discussion amongst
those of us who care to think about radio and electronics.
Anyone else notice that his command of English varies from posting to
posting?

73, Ian.

common mode current
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


But I do not understand why in your antennas no electrons.

That is because you are a stupid, ignorant, argumentative, babbling,
ineducable idiot than instead of listening and learning argues with people
with hundreds of years of combined experience.

You also refuse to read, and reread until you really understand it, any
modern material on electromagnetics,

In electromagnetics also no electrons. Why?
S*

If your were to read, and reread until you really understand it, any modern
material on electromagnetics, you would then know what role electons play
in electromagnetics and electromagnetic fields.

Yes, electrons are involved in electromagnetic fields, but no, electrons do
NOT jump off antenna elements.

Why are you incapable of getting a University level textbook, in any
language, on electromagnetics and reading it?

common mode current
 

Ian wrote:
wrote in message
...
Gaius wrote:

By us, of course, I don't include Szczepan. My feeing is that he's
either :

1 Far gone with senile dementia OR
2 An academic troll who's been winding up Usenet groups for years

I think (2) is more likely - dementia is progressive, and I'd expect
Szczepan's ramblings to get gradually more and more incoherent. Instead
there is a strangely consistent quality to them.

Anyway, I killfiled him years ago.


Possiblility 3; he's not very bright and he's bat **** crazy.

Hello chaps.

Regardless of the reason for his postings, Szczepan is good for a laugh (and
I don't mean that in a nasty way) and the occasional good discussion amongst
those of us who care to think about radio and electronics.
Anyone else notice that his command of English varies from posting to
posting?

73, Ian.


Looking at his posts from years ago, I don't see a lot of difference.

It appears his ability to learn English is just as bad as his ability
to learn anything else.


He is ineducable.

common mode current
 

On 7/13/2012 12:14 AM, Brett Crapser wrote:
Boomer wrote:
On 7/11/2012 3:18 PM, Ian wrote:
"Boomer" wrote in message
...
Ian, I am pretty advanced in years. I am 69. I can remember a comedian
whose name escapes me. He got paid good money for coming on stage and
talking just like Szczepan. I think it would be a gas for him to address a
large gathering of amateur radio operators. He could have us all in
stitches in a few seconds.

[snip]
Michael

Hello Michael. From where I am sitting, 69 isn't all that old. I have
friends heading for 90 who are definitely not showing their age.
Was the comedian a Brit named Stanley Unwin or an American named Fred ???
73, Ian.

I just can't remember Ian.

Michael

Pretty sure you are talking about Professor Irwin Corey "The World's Foremost Authority".

http://www.irwincorey.org

He's 95 and still working - I'd hurry if you want him...

Brett

Yes Brett, it came back to me. It is so good to know he was an engineer.
YES professor Irwin Corey. Szczepan needs to polish up his act a
little to match the professor. He is just not quite there. I suspect he
never will be. However, he is still funny, just not as funny as the
professor. God, 95 and still working, bless his heart.

Michael

common mode current
 

"Boomer" wrote in message
...
On 7/13/2012 12:14 AM, Brett Crapser wrote:
Boomer wrote:
On 7/11/2012 3:18 PM, Ian wrote:
"Boomer" wrote in message
...
Ian, I am pretty advanced in years. I am 69. I can remember a comedian
whose name escapes me. He got paid good money for coming on stage and
talking just like Szczepan. I think it would be a gas for him to
address a
large gathering of amateur radio operators. He could have us all in
stitches in a few seconds.

[snip]
Michael

Hello Michael. From where I am sitting, 69 isn't all that old. I have
friends heading for 90 who are definitely not showing their age.
Was the comedian a Brit named Stanley Unwin or an American named Fred
???
73, Ian.

I just can't remember Ian.

Michael

Pretty sure you are talking about Professor Irwin Corey "The World's
Foremost Authority".

http://www.irwincorey.org

He's 95 and still working - I'd hurry if you want him...

Brett

Yes Brett, it came back to me. It is so good to know he was an engineer.
YES professor Irwin Corey. Szczepan needs to polish up his act a little to
match the professor. He is just not quite there. I suspect he never will
be. However, he is still funny, just not as funny as the professor. God,
95 and still working, bless his heart.

Michael

Hello chaps.
Michael - thank you for the link to Irwin Corey. I've not heard of him at
all so I will spend some time watching the videos on his web site.
Best wishes to all for a good weekend. If you're coming to the UK for the
Olympics then I suggest some decent waterproof clothing.

73 Ian.

common mode current
 

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

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


But I do not understand why in your antennas no electrons.

That is because you are a stupid, ignorant, argumentative, babbling,
ineducable idiot than instead of listening and learning argues with
people
with hundreds of years of combined experience.

You also refuse to read, and reread until you really understand it, any
modern material on electromagnetics,

In electromagnetics also no electrons. Why?
S*

If your were to read, and reread until you really understand it, any
modern
material on electromagnetics, you would then know what role electons play
in electromagnetics and electromagnetic fields.

Yes, electrons are involved in electromagnetic fields, but no, electrons
do
NOT jump off antenna elements.

Why are you incapable of getting a University level textbook, in any
language, on electromagnetics and reading it?

" modern material on electromagnetics," is wrote by Heaviside"

"I remember my first look at the great treatise of Maxwell's when I was a
young man... I saw that it was great, greater and greatest, with prodigious
possibilities in its power... I was determined to master the book and set to
work. I was very ignorant. I had no knowledge of mathematical analysis
(having learned only school algebra and trigonometry which I had largely
forgotten) and thus my work was laid out for me. It took me several years
before I could understand as much as I possibly could. Then I set Maxwell
aside and followed my own course. And I progressed much more quickly... It
will be understood that I preach the gospel according to my interpretation
of Maxwell.[4] From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

His "own course" is without the "electric particles". In Maxwell model were
such.
What "role electons play" in antennas (not in fields)?
S*

common mode current
 

On Saturday, July 14, 2012 2:38:16 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
What "role electons play" in antennas (not in fields)?

You should forgive Maxwell's ignorance and join us in the 21st century. Free electrons act as a "bucket brigade" for the coherent photons which make up the quantized fields/waves surrounding the antenna conductor. If Maxwell were alive today, he would have rewritten his works to correct his ignorant mistakes. Would you still be studying his obsolete works or his new corrected works?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

common mode current
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Saturday, July 14, 2012 2:38:16 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
What "role electons play" in antennas (not in fields)?

You should forgive Maxwell's ignorance and join us in the 21st century.
Free electrons act as a "bucket brigade" for the coherent photons which
make up the quantized fields/waves surrounding the antenna conductor. If
Maxwell were alive today, he would have rewritten his works to correct his
ignorant mistakes. Would you still be studying his obsolete works or his
new corrected works?

I do not studying Maxwell, Heaviside's and his new corrected works. Jimp do
it and recommend it to me.
I am in the 21st century. It is the plazma time.
S*

common mode current
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

" modern material on electromagnetics," is wrote by Heaviside"

Modern material on electromagnetics was written LONG after Heaviside died,
you babbling, ineducable idiot.

snip 100 year old quote

His "own course" is without the "electric particles". In Maxwell model were
such.
What "role electons play" in antennas (not in fields)?

The analysis of antennas is about the analysis of fields, you babbbling,
ineducable idiot.

If your were to read, and reread until you really understand it, any
MODERN material on electromagnetics, you would then know what role electons
play in electromagnetics and electromagnetic fields.

Yes, electrons are involved in electromagnetic fields, but no, electrons
do NOT jump off antenna elements.

Why are you incapable of getting a University level textbook, in any
language, on electromagnetics and reading it?

common mode current
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Saturday, July 14, 2012 2:38:16 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
What "role electons play" in antennas (not in fields)?

You should forgive Maxwell's ignorance and join us in the 21st century.
Free electrons act as a "bucket brigade" for the coherent photons which
make up the quantized fields/waves surrounding the antenna conductor. If
Maxwell were alive today, he would have rewritten his works to correct his
ignorant mistakes. Would you still be studying his obsolete works or his
new corrected works?

I do not studying Maxwell, Heaviside's and his new corrected works. Jimp do
it and recommend it to me.

You babbling, ignorant, stupid, ineducable, idiot, I reccommended you read
MODERN texts, that is texts written LONG after Heaviside died.

I am in the 21st century. It is the plazma time.

You are in the 19th century and "plazma" is not a word.

Why are you incapable of getting a current University level textbook, in any
language, on electromagnetics and reading it?

common mode current
 

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

I do not studying Maxwell, Heaviside's and his new corrected works. Jimp
do
it and recommend it to me.

You babbling, ignorant, stupid, ineducable, idiot, I reccommended you read
MODERN texts, that is texts written LONG after Heaviside died.

MODERN texts use the Biot-Savart law.
"1825 - Ampere publishes his collected results on magnetism. His
expression for the magnetic field produced by a small segment of current is
different from that which follows naturally from the Biot-Savart law by an
additive term which integrates to zero around closed circuit. It is
unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of Biot and
Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere, whose memoir
contains both mathematical analysis and experimentation, artfully blended
together. In this memoir are given some special instances of the result we
now call Stokes theorem or as we usually write it. Maxwell describes this
work as ``one of the most brilliant achievements in science. The whole,
theory and experiment, seems as if it had leaped, full-grown and full-armed,
from the brain of the `Newton of electricity'. It is perfect in form and
unassailable in accuracy; and it is summed up in a formula from which all
the phenomena may be deduced, and which must always remain the cardinal
formula of electrodynamics.''

I am in the 21st century. It is the plazma time.

Why are you incapable of getting a current University level textbook, in
any
language, on electromagnetics and reading it?

Electromagnetics is a piece to teach (for children).

For adults are electrodynamics. In a current University level textbook are
many chapters.
The fields are only a math tool. Completly useless for electrons.
S*

common mode current
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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

I do not studying Maxwell, Heaviside's and his new corrected works. Jimp
do
it and recommend it to me.

You babbling, ignorant, stupid, ineducable, idiot, I reccommended you read
MODERN texts, that is texts written LONG after Heaviside died.

MODERN texts use the Biot-Savart law.

You babbling, ignorant, stupid, ineducable, idiot, Biot-Savart applies
to magnetostatics, which has NOTHING to do with how antennas work.

Jefimenko's equations are the basis of modern electromagnetic field analysis.

Jefimenko's equations first appeared in print in 1962.

snip qoute from 187 years ago

Electromagnetics is a piece to teach (for children).

Gibberish.

For adults are electrodynamics. In a current University level textbook are
many chapters.

More gibberish.

The fields are only a math tool. Completly useless for electrons.

Yet more gibberish.

All the above is the meaningless, ignorant babble of a moron.

You are a babbling, ignorant, stupid, ineducable, idiot.

Why are you unable to obtain and read a modern, university text and
read it in any language?

common mode current
 

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


MODERN texts use the Biot-Savart law.

You babbling, ignorant, stupid, ineducable, idiot, Biot-Savart applies
to magnetostatics, which has NOTHING to do with how antennas work.

Jefimenko's equations are the basis of modern electromagnetic field
analysis.

Jefimenko's equations first appeared in print in 1962.

"Jackson characterizes the equations as "Jefimenko's generalization of the
Coulomb and Biot-Savart Laws".

Heaviside and Jefimenko assumed that: "That a moving charge is equivalent to
an electric current-element is undoubted, and to call it a
convection-current. as Prof. S. P. Thompson does, seems reasonable." From:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Elect..._moving_charge

It is not reasonable. In current are many charges (electrons). No
experimental evidences what the magnetic field is in the case of the one
charge.

The reasonable aproach is the Faraday's:
" Whatever the view adopted respecting them may be, we can, at all events,
affect these lines of force in a manner which may be conceived as partaking
of the nature of a shake or lateral vibration. 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."

Here the oscillating charge causes the lateral disturbances.
In Biot-Savart are the rotational disturbances.
S*

common mode current
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


MODERN texts use the Biot-Savart law.

You babbling, ignorant, stupid, ineducable, idiot, Biot-Savart applies
to magnetostatics, which has NOTHING to do with how antennas work.

Jefimenko's equations are the basis of modern electromagnetic field
analysis.

Jefimenko's equations first appeared in print in 1962.

"Jackson characterizes the equations as "Jefimenko's generalization of the
Coulomb and Biot-Savart Laws".

Yes, but you haven't a clue what that really means.

Heaviside and Jefimenko assumed that: "That a moving charge is equivalent to
an electric current-element is undoubted, and to call it a
convection-current. as Prof. S. P. Thompson does, seems reasonable." From:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Elect..._moving_charge

Irrelevant to the discussion and Heaviside did not fully understand
electromagnetic fields.

It is not reasonable. In current are many charges (electrons). No
experimental evidences what the magnetic field is in the case of the one
charge.

Yes, you ignorant moron, there is LOTS of evidence about the magnetic
field of individual charges, not the least of which is the operation
of the cathode ray tube, possibly known to you as a TV picture tube.

The reasonable aproach is the Faraday's:
" Whatever the view adopted respecting them may be, we can, at all events,
affect these lines of force in a manner which may be conceived as partaking
of the nature of a shake or lateral vibration. 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."

You haven't a clue what that really means.

Here the oscillating charge causes the lateral disturbances.
In Biot-Savart are the rotational disturbances.
S*

Biot-Savart applies magnetostatics, which has NOTHING to do with how
antennas work.

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 do you refuse to read a university level textbook on electromagnetics?

Is it because you are too ignorant and stupid to understand the contents
in any language?