"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:36:55 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

Stephan, you are simply trolling and that is why you are here.

You too serious. Science is very funny.

Well, at least you didn't dispute me. And yes, I can laugh. Haven't
you noticed yet? You are a funny troll, and we all can tell you want
to keep it that way. Unfortunately, we have funnier trolls. :-(

Here are examples that science is fuuny.
1. Browian movements. The pet theory says that not simmetrical kicking from
H2O particles are the cause. But everybody should know that ALL SUSPENSION
ARE CHARGED. No charge no suspension. The electrostatic is the cause.

2. Cavitation demages. The pet theory says that the colapsing of bubbles is
the cause. But demages are in the area where the bubbles appear. The demages
are electrochemical.

3. Photons. The pet theory says that light is particles. Everybody should
know what the coherence is. Light is emitted in packets (as largely
longitudinal waves)

4. The magnetic whirl ..... and many others pet theories.

Is not this very funny?
S*

U¿ytkownik "Cecil Moore" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
So now I know what I want. Do you agree with Dr.?

The superposition of coherent waves is a linear function.
Therefore, there is no way for the superposition process
itself to produce harmonics.

But the dipole has the two independent sources on the two ends. The waves
from them are "coupled". We can say "polarised" but it not means that radio
waves are tranversal.

For frequency doubling to exist, there must be a nonlinear
process. The question is: Does any nonlinear process exist
between the linear transmitting antenna and the linear
receiving antenna?

Forget nonlinear process. In emmiting antenna the one current cycle produce
the two spherical waves from the ends (of course not in phase). So equipment
is "polarised" not the waves.
It is most interesting that at very short distances the polarisation works
and the frequency is not twice more.

I once heard a pile of tin cans talking to me. Turns out
some rusted junction in the pile of cans was detecting
the FM from the local radio station. That was a non-linear
process. Lucille Ball is reported to have picked up Japanese
CW signals through the fillings in her teeth, again a non-
linear process.

All are like coherer. The first detector of the radio waves.
S*

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:43:27 -0400, "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz"
wrote:

I suspect your problem is one of language
and adolescent stubbornness combined.

Hi Barry,

I suspect you would be wrong on two counts, but that is of no
importance.

frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP*), and also by

* This group is also not the place to bring up conspiracy theories
involving this research program.

Good resources that will add to our composite knowledge. I will
browse them. As for HAARP, that "controversy" has faded considerable
from its first incendiary introduction years ago. I wonder if Stephan
will pick up on its implications.

Now I read only the description (original if possible) of experiments and
observations. Interpretations and explanation I do myself.
Now are many publications because they are obligatory (like homework).
The problem transverse vs longitudinal is now very simple. In nature no
pure transverse waves. Always are the two components. Even water waves
are largely longitudinal.
But we need the explanation for light polarization. So I am here.
S*

EM waves are transverse. The Poynting vector is the cross product of the
electric and magnetic field, by definition that results in a direction of
propagation that is perpendicular to the two fields.

The Pointing vector and the rest are from the fluid mechnics. There are the
whirls. Whirls had also sense in times when electricity was as
incompressible massles fluid. The moving electrons cause in medium stress
and strains.
The magnetic whirl around a wire is a assmption. The clasical EM is valid
only for such assumption.
S*

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
But the dipole has the two independent sources on the two ends. The
waves from them are "coupled". We can say "polarised" but it not means
that radio waves are tranversal.

The "sources" of radiation on the two ends of a dipole
are not independent. There are coherent with the single
source. There is no way to superpose two coherent waves
to get a doubling of frequency. According to the math
model, all one gets is single-frequency interference.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
The magnetic whirl around a wire is a assmption. The clasical EM is
valid only for such assumption.

EM waves in free space, "in" a wire, or in a waveguide,
propagate at the speed of light in the medium. Therefore,
the EM energy is photonic since electrons cannot move
that fast. Even the impulse current in a DC circuit
is photonic. The name "standing wave" is an oxymoron.
If its standing, it's not a wave, by definition.

An analogy might be water flowing through a pipe. One
can send information through the pipe much faster than
the water is flowing.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:04:44 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

Here are examples that science is fuuny.

Is that pronounced EYEgor?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:04:44 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

Here are examples that science is fuuny.

Is that pronounced EYEgor?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Unfortunately he probably won't get it.

tom
K0TAR

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Is not this very funny?
S*


no, it is sad. you come asking questions, and refuse to accept the
answers... like i said before, you should talk to art, you two will get
along well.