Poynting vector
 

Father of the famous vector wrote in 1884 (before the Hertz experiment):
"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,"

A few days ago Jimp wrote:
"An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
terminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna".

So "enters in = radiates from"?
Can anybody help?
S*

Poynting vector
 

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:11:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

Father of the famous vector wrote in 1884 (before the Hertz experiment):
"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,"

A few days ago Jimp wrote:
"An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
terminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna".

So "enters in = radiates from"?
Can anybody help?
S*


Sure, what is your problem?
Need a fresh diaper?
Someone to push your wheelchair?

w.

Poynting vector
 

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:11:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

A few days ago Jimp wrote:
"An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
terminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna".

Hello Jimp.

Did you put an apostrophe in the wrong place ("it's" should be "its") or do
we have a wild, roving electron making its presence known? :-

73, Ian.

Poynting vector
 

Ian wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:11:31 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

A few days ago Jimp wrote:
"An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
terminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna".

Hello Jimp.

Did you put an apostrophe in the wrong place ("it's" should be "its") or do
we have a wild, roving electron making its presence known? :-

73, Ian.

Oh, I am forever screwing up it's/its when I'm typing fast and not
particularly thinking about what I am writting; i.e. when responding to
Polish morons and spending as little time as possible on it.

Poynting vector
 

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:11:31 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So "enters in = radiates from"?

To the extent that RF energy penetrates to a skin effect depth, the conductor is not perfect and dissipates some of the power. All real-world antennas dissipate some of the RF power in I^2*R (and possibly dielectric) losses. In an efficient antenna, most of the system energy is "lost" in space as coherent radiation.

When the free electrons in a conductor are acting as a bucket brigade for the RF fields/waves/photons, they are essentially vibrating in place because of their very slow drift velocity. Those I^2*R losses in the wire are due to coherent RF photons that are absorbed by electrons and not re-emitted as coherent RF photons but are instead converted to heat energy, the price that Mother Nature requires be paid for all that vibration. In an antenna that is 90% efficient, 10% of the coherent RF energy is converted into non-coherent heat energy. That's the energy that Poynting was talking about.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Poynting vector
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:11:31 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So: enters in = radiates from;?

To the extent that RF energy penetrates to a skin effect depth, the
conductor is not perfect and dissipates some of the power. All real-world
antennas dissipate some of the RF power in I^2*R (and possibly dielectric)
losses. In an efficient antenna, most of the system energy is "lost" in
space as coherent radiation.

When the free electrons in a conductor are acting as a bucket brigade for
the RF fields/waves/photons, they are essentially vibrating in place
because of their very slow drift velocity. Those I^2*R losses in the wire
are due to coherent RF photons that are absorbed by electrons and not
re-emitted as coherent RF photons but are instead converted to heat energy,
the price that Mother Nature requires be paid for all that vibration. In an
antenna that is 90% efficient, 10% of the coherent RF energy is converted
into non-coherent heat energy. That's the energy that Poynting was talking
about.

Pointing was writting in 1884. He described the DC current.
His result is caused by the assumption that the Biot-Savart law is right. Is
it?
S*

Poynting vector
 

wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:
Hello Jimp.

Did you put an apostrophe in the wrong place ("it's" should be "its") or
do
we have a wild, roving electron making its presence known? :-

73, Ian.

Oh, I am forever screwing up it's/its when I'm typing fast and not
particularly thinking about what I am writting; i.e. when responding to
Polish morons and spending as little time as possible on it.

Hello Jimp. I still prefer to think of it as an electron doing its own
thing for independence.

Seems to me that most of the postings from Szczepan tend to be
copy-and-paste ones rather than "original thought" ones. I suspect he is an
old East European having a laugh at us Westerners but I wouldn't dispute the
other Ian's suggestion that we're dealing with a Turing test.

Is a moron akin to a proton?

73, Ian.

Poynting vector
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:11:31 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So: enters in = radiates from;?

To the extent that RF energy penetrates to a skin effect depth, the
conductor is not perfect and dissipates some of the power. All real-world
antennas dissipate some of the RF power in I^2*R (and possibly dielectric)
losses. In an efficient antenna, most of the system energy is "lost" in
space as coherent radiation.

When the free electrons in a conductor are acting as a bucket brigade for
the RF fields/waves/photons, they are essentially vibrating in place
because of their very slow drift velocity. Those I^2*R losses in the wire
are due to coherent RF photons that are absorbed by electrons and not
re-emitted as coherent RF photons but are instead converted to heat energy,
the price that Mother Nature requires be paid for all that vibration. In an
antenna that is 90% efficient, 10% of the coherent RF energy is converted
into non-coherent heat energy. That's the energy that Poynting was talking
about.

Pointing was writting in 1884. He described the DC current.
His result is caused by the assumption that the Biot-Savart law is right. Is
it?
S*

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.

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.

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?

Poynting vector
 

On 7/25/2012 11:55 AM, wrote:
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:11:31 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So: enters in = radiates from;?

To the extent that RF energy penetrates to a skin effect depth, the
conductor is not perfect and dissipates some of the power. All real-world
antennas dissipate some of the RF power in I^2*R (and possibly dielectric)
losses. In an efficient antenna, most of the system energy is "lost" in
space as coherent radiation.

When the free electrons in a conductor are acting as a bucket brigade for
the RF fields/waves/photons, they are essentially vibrating in place
because of their very slow drift velocity. Those I^2*R losses in the wire
are due to coherent RF photons that are absorbed by electrons and not
re-emitted as coherent RF photons but are instead converted to heat energy,
the price that Mother Nature requires be paid for all that vibration. In an
antenna that is 90% efficient, 10% of the coherent RF energy is converted
into non-coherent heat energy. That's the energy that Poynting was talking
about.

Pointing was writting in 1884. He described the DC current.
His result is caused by the assumption that the Biot-Savart law is right. Is
it?
S*

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.

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.

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?

You know better than to ask those questions of an "ignorant, babbling,
ineducable idiot".

Poynting vector
 

Ian wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:
Hello Jimp.

Did you put an apostrophe in the wrong place ("it's" should be "its") or
do
we have a wild, roving electron making its presence known? :-

73, Ian.

Oh, I am forever screwing up it's/its when I'm typing fast and not
particularly thinking about what I am writting; i.e. when responding to
Polish morons and spending as little time as possible on it.

Hello Jimp. I still prefer to think of it as an electron doing its own
thing for independence.

Seems to me that most of the postings from Szczepan tend to be
copy-and-paste ones rather than "original thought" ones. I suspect he is an
old East European having a laugh at us Westerners but I wouldn't dispute the
other Ian's suggestion that we're dealing with a Turing test.

Is a moron akin to a proton?

73, Ian.

He seems pretty consistant in his inanity; I think he is coo coo for
Cocoa Puffs. (non North America readers may have to Google for meaning)

Poynting vector
 

John S wrote:

You know better than to ask those questions of an "ignorant, babbling,
ineducable idiot".

Oh, I know he will never answer any question, at least not with anything
coherent.

Poynting vector
 

On 7/25/2012 12:58 PM, wrote:
John S wrote:

You know better than to ask those questions of an "ignorant, babbling,
ineducable idiot".

Oh, I know he will never answer any question, at least not with anything
coherent.

Your questions are fu-tile.

Poynting vector
 

John S wrote:
On 7/25/2012 12:58 PM, wrote:
John S wrote:

You know better than to ask those questions of an "ignorant, babbling,
ineducable idiot".

Oh, I know he will never answer any question, at least not with anything
coherent.

Your questions are fu-tile.

Much like the expection that the idiot will ever understand the simplest
of concepts.

Poynting vector
 

May the group forgive me for what I am about to post....

Your admission that you know "he will never answer..." and your repeated
and repetitious replies have drawn out the threads in which you both become
involved to great lengths. This has done little to make you appear much
different from him,
and, in my opinion, little to enhance your standing among those who have
carried on intelligent discussions in the past. Isn't enough enough? Or
are you just another troller as well?

Irv VE6BP


r wrote in message
...
John S wrote:

You know better than to ask those questions of an "ignorant, babbling,
ineducable idiot".

Oh, I know he will never answer any question, at least not with anything
coherent.

Poynting vector
 

Irv Finkleman wrote:
May the group forgive me for what I am about to post....

Your admission that you know "he will never answer..." and your repeated
and repetitious replies have drawn out the threads in which you both become
involved to great lengths. This has done little to make you appear much
different from him,
and, in my opinion, little to enhance your standing among those who have
carried on intelligent discussions in the past. Isn't enough enough? Or
are you just another troller as well?

Irv VE6BP

Do you see any technical errors in any of my replies?

Do you see any reply where I forgot to include technical information?

Poynting vector
 

Nothing wrong technically other than you keep repeating things
over and over again knowing (by your own admission) that he'll never get it
right. You simply keep feeding the troll who keeps feeding you. At some
time one
must decide when to quit. There is a saying something like "God, grant me
the
serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to
change the things I can, and the WISDOM to know the
difference."

Irv VE6BP

wrote in message
...
Irv Finkleman wrote:
May the group forgive me for what I am about to post....

Your admission that you know "he will never answer..." and your repeated
and repetitious replies have drawn out the threads in which you both
become
involved to great lengths. This has done little to make you appear much
different from him,
and, in my opinion, little to enhance your standing among those who have
carried on intelligent discussions in the past. Isn't enough enough? Or
are you just another troller as well?

Irv VE6BP

Do you see any technical errors in any of my replies?

Do you see any reply where I forgot to include technical information?

Poynting vector
 

In Australia we have a left wing politician who is the equivalent of SB. She
remains implaccably dead pan though whilst normal people, in an argument,
are reduced to almost tears in trying to implant at least a seed of common
sense. To no avail, she remains an impassive idiot.
I suspect Irv is totally correct. Do your blood pressure a favour!!
Kind regards
John
"Irv Finkleman" wrote in message
...
May the group forgive me for what I am about to post....

Your admission that you know "he will never answer..." and your repeated
and repetitious replies have drawn out the threads in which you both
become
involved to great lengths. This has done little to make you appear much
different from him,
and, in my opinion, little to enhance your standing among those who have
carried on intelligent discussions in the past. Isn't enough enough? Or
are you just another troller as well?

Irv VE6BP


r wrote in message
...
John S wrote:

You know better than to ask those questions of an "ignorant, babbling,
ineducable idiot".

Oh, I know he will never answer any question, at least not with anything
coherent.

Poynting vector
 

On 8/4/2012 11:06 PM, John wrote:
In Australia we have a left wing politician who is the equivalent of SB. She
remains implaccably dead pan though whilst normal people, in an argument,
are reduced to almost tears in trying to implant at least a seed of common
sense. To no avail, she remains an impassive idiot.
I suspect Irv is totally correct. Do your blood pressure a favour!!
Kind regards
John
"Irv wrote in message
...
May the group forgive me for what I am about to post....

Your admission that you know "he will never answer..." and your repeated
and repetitious replies have drawn out the threads in which you both
become
involved to great lengths. This has done little to make you appear much
different from him,
and, in my opinion, little to enhance your standing among those who have
carried on intelligent discussions in the past. Isn't enough enough? Or
are you just another troller as well?

Irv VE6BP


wrote in message
...
John wrote:

You know better than to ask those questions of an "ignorant, babbling,
ineducable idiot".

Oh, I know he will never answer any question, at least not with anything
coherent.








As I've said several times, he's a troll. Stop feeding him.

tom
K0TAR

Poynting vector
 

On 8/4/2012 11:06 PM, John wrote:
In Australia we have a left wing politician who is the equivalent of SB. She
remains implaccably dead pan though whilst normal people, in an argument,
are reduced to almost tears in trying to implant at least a seed of common
sense. To no avail, she remains an impassive idiot.

We have a perfect match in Minnesota - Michele Bachmann.

She is quite embarrassing.

tom
K0TAR

Poynting vector
 

On 8/5/2012 10:02 PM, tom wrote:
On 8/4/2012 11:06 PM, John wrote:
In Australia we have a left wing politician who is the equivalent of
SB. She
remains implaccably dead pan though whilst normal people, in an argument,
are reduced to almost tears in trying to implant at least a seed of
common
sense. To no avail, she remains an impassive idiot.

We have a perfect match in Minnesota - Michele Bachmann.

She is quite embarrassing.

tom
K0TAR


Forgot to mention she is right wing. Both sides have the same problem.

tom
K0TAR

Poynting vector
 

Quite so! Being a PITA is not confined to any particular
stance.

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
On 8/5/2012 10:02 PM, tom wrote:
On 8/4/2012 11:06 PM, John wrote:
In Australia we have a left wing politician who is the equivalent of
SB. She
remains implaccably dead pan though whilst normal people, in an
argument,
are reduced to almost tears in trying to implant at least a seed of
common
sense. To no avail, she remains an impassive idiot.

We have a perfect match in Minnesota - Michele Bachmann.

She is quite embarrassing.

tom
K0TAR


Forgot to mention she is right wing. Both sides have the same problem.

tom
K0TAR

Poynting vector
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...

On 8/5/2012 10:02 PM, tom wrote:
On 8/4/2012 11:06 PM, John wrote:
In Australia we have a left wing politician who is the equivalent of
SB. She
remains implaccably dead pan though whilst normal people, in an argument,
are reduced to almost tears in trying to implant at least a seed of
common
sense. To no avail, she remains an impassive idiot.

We have a perfect match in Minnesota - Michele Bachmann.

She is quite embarrassing.

tom
K0TAR


# Forgot to mention she is right wing. Both sides have the same problem.

# tom
# K0TAR

In California, we have Maxine Waters. Makes Bachmann look like a genius.

Poynting vector
 

On Monday, August 6, 2012 10:46:08 AM UTC-5, Wayne wrote:
In California, we have Maxine Waters. Makes Bachmann look like a genius.

In Texas, we have Sheila Jackson Lee.:(

Poynting vector
 

On 8/6/2012 1:43 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Monday, August 6, 2012 10:46:08 AM UTC-5, Wayne wrote:
In California, we have Maxine Waters. Makes Bachmann look like a genius.

In Texas, we have Sheila Jackson Lee.:(


Chortle.. When they passed out the brains, she was a K-mart shopper.
But, let us not forget Barbara Boxer.
In CA, she should at least give Waters a run for the money.
And then you have lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. :|
Not only is she brain dead, but if you run her hair through a
clothes wringer, you will obtain enough oil to lubricate three
Ford trucks. :/

Poynting vector
 

"NM5K" wrote in message
...
| On 8/6/2012 1:43 PM, W5DXP wrote:
| On Monday, August 6, 2012 10:46:08 AM UTC-5, Wayne wrote:
| In California, we have Maxine Waters. Makes Bachmann look like a
genius.
|
| In Texas, we have Sheila Jackson Lee.:(
|
|
| Chortle.. When they passed out the brains, she was a K-mart shopper.
| But, let us not forget Barbara Boxer.
| In CA, she should at least give Waters a run for the money.
| And then you have lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. :|
| Not only is she brain dead, but if you run her hair through a
| clothes wringer, you will obtain enough oil to lubricate three
| Ford trucks. :/
|
Hello folks. I said that the postings made by S* sometimes gave rise to
useful discussions.

73, Ian.

Poynting vector
 

"Ian" wrote in message ...

"NM5K" wrote in message
...
| On 8/6/2012 1:43 PM, W5DXP wrote:
| On Monday, August 6, 2012 10:46:08 AM UTC-5, Wayne wrote:
| In California, we have Maxine Waters. Makes Bachmann look like a
genius.
|
| In Texas, we have Sheila Jackson Lee.:(
|
|
| Chortle.. When they passed out the brains, she was a K-mart shopper.
| But, let us not forget Barbara Boxer.
| In CA, she should at least give Waters a run for the money.
| And then you have lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. :|
| Not only is she brain dead, but if you run her hair through a
| clothes wringer, you will obtain enough oil to lubricate three
| Ford trucks. :/
|
# Hello folks. I said that the postings made by S* sometimes gave rise to
# useful discussions.

# 73, Ian.

Indeed snort
And it makes a little more sense than leaping electrons.

Poynting vector
 

"Wayne" napisal w wiadomosci
...

"Ian" wrote in message ...
|
# Hello folks. I said that the postings made by S* sometimes gave rise to
# useful discussions.


Indeed snort
And it makes a little more sense than leaping electrons.

"Leaping" fits to the oscillatory flow:
""It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving
slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small
amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result
of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals
the velocity of light." From:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...ac-lecture.pdf
S*

Poynting vector
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
|
| "Leaping" fits to the oscillatory flow:
| ""It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving
| slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of
small
| amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a
result
| of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time
equals
| the velocity of light." From:
|
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...ac-lecture.pdf
| S*
|
Good morning Szczepan.
Would you kindly explain that in your own words, please? Ther's no point
quoting a text if you do not udnerstand it.

Anyone else wonder why there aren't any postings here from other Poles?

73, Ian.

Poynting vector
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
|
|
| "Leaping" fits to the oscillatory flow:
| ""It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving
| slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of
small
| amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a
result
| of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time
equals
| the velocity of light." From:
|
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...ac-lecture.pdf
| S*

Good morning Szczepan.
Would you kindly explain that in your own words, please? There's no point
quoting a text if you do not understand it.

Anyone else wonder why there aren't any postings here from other Poles?

73, Ian (second attempt with obvious spelling errors corrected).

Poynting vector
 

Ian wrote:
Anyone else wonder why there aren't any postings here from other Poles?

Considering the overall volume of postings here and the fraction of
world population that the Poles are, I don't think it is statistically
surprising that you see only a single Pole here.

Poynting vector
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
: Ian wrote:
: Anyone else wonder why there aren't any postings here from other Poles?
:
: Considering the overall volume of postings here and the fraction of
: world population that the Poles are, I don't think it is statistically
: surprising that you see only a single Pole here.

Hello Rob.

Well, I'm thinking that where there is one then there will probably be
others. Perhaps the postings by Szczepan deter other Poles from posting.
73, Ian.

Poynting vector
 

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 3:30:29 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
... the velocity of the electron at any time equals the velocity of light.

Since such an electron would create an instant black hole, you seem to have proved that such exists - in your logic.:)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Poynting vector
 

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 6:21:46 AM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
Anyone else wonder why there aren't any postings here from other Poles?

Maybe his jumping electrons only apply to a monoPole?

Poynting vector
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Wayne" napisal w wiadomosci
...

"Ian" wrote in message ...
|
# Hello folks. I said that the postings made by S* sometimes gave rise to
# useful discussions.


Indeed snort
And it makes a little more sense than leaping electrons.

"Leaping" fits to the oscillatory flow:
""It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving
slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small
amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result
of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals
the velocity of light." From:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...ac-lecture.pdf
S*

Subsequently shown to be incorrect as electrons can not move at the speed
of light.

Do you wear slip on shoes?

Poynting vector
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .


"Wayne" napisal w wiadomosci
...

"Ian" wrote in message ...
|
# Hello folks. I said that the postings made by S* sometimes gave rise to
# useful discussions.


Indeed snort
And it makes a little more sense than leaping electrons.

"Leaping" fits to the oscillatory flow:
""It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving
slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of
small
amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result
of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals
the velocity of light." From:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...ac-lecture.pdf
S*

Good morning.

Nice try, but I'll let someone else play the game with you while I watch.

Wayne
W5GIE

Poynting vector
 

"Rob" wrote in message ...

Ian wrote:
Anyone else wonder why there aren't any postings here from other Poles?

Considering the overall volume of postings here and the fraction of
world population that the Poles are, I don't think it is statistically
surprising that you see only a single Pole here.

But they have made considerable contributions in the world of technology.
For example, Alexander Graham Kowalski....inventor of the telephone pole.

Poynting vector
 

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
:
:
: "Rob" wrote in message ...
:
: Ian wrote:
: Anyone else wonder why there aren't any postings here from other Poles?
:
: Considering the overall volume of postings here and the fraction of
: world population that the Poles are, I don't think it is statistically
: surprising that you see only a single Pole here.
:
: But they have made considerable contributions in the world of technology.
: For example, Alexander Graham Kowalski....inventor of the telephone pole.

And let's not forget our geography - Mr Northski and Mr Southski.

Poynting vector
 

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Ian wrote:
Anyone else wonder why there aren't any postings here from other Poles?

Considering the overall volume of postings here and the fraction of
world population that the Poles are, I don't think it is statistically
surprising that you see only a single Pole here.

But even I am not the poster. I only "copy and paste".

So the real posters a Faraday, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac.

They are using the words "oscillations" and "vibrations".
Wayne used the "leaping". It is also not precise.

In the antenna are the unsymmetrical oscillations like in the water waves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif
SO*

Poynting vector
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
:
:
: But even I am not the poster. I only "copy and paste".
:
: So the real posters a Faraday, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac.
:
: They are using the words "oscillations" and "vibrations".
: Wayne used the "leaping". It is also not precise.
:
: In the antenna are the unsymmetrical oscillations like in the water waves:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif
: SO*
Hello Szczepan.

Actually, yes, you are the poster. You copy and paste and post. The problem
is that you often don't understand the meaning / import of the text which
you are copying and pasting and posting nor do you learn from the postings
made in reply to you.

Regards, Ian.

Poynting vector
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Ian wrote:
Anyone else wonder why there aren't any postings here from other Poles?

Considering the overall volume of postings here and the fraction of
world population that the Poles are, I don't think it is statistically
surprising that you see only a single Pole here.

But even I am not the poster. I only "copy and paste".

So the real posters a Faraday, Lorenz, Tesla and Dirac.

Nope, just a Polish idiot pasting quotes history has proven wrong.

They are using the words "oscillations" and "vibrations".

They died a long time ago; those words are not used now.

Wayne used the "leaping". It is also not precise.

In the antenna are the unsymmetrical oscillations like in the water waves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif
SO*

No, there is not.

Do you wear slip on shoes?