Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:03 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Mike you forget.
I do not subscribe to the wave theory over the particle aproach.
I cannot see any other way to fit that "radiation is from the
acceleration of a charge". And I can not find any explanation of this
in any books. Only mass is able to have spin and at the same time
transport energy, at least to my mind.
So are you saying that FR energy has mass, or that it doesn't have spin?
Therefore accelaration is the
creation of two forces that are not in the same plain ala a shear
action where the combination of gravity and the Coriolis force are the
weakest forces known in the std model.
What is the acceleration of RF?
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
The speed of light.
Acceleration isn't expressed as C.

Does RF energy have mass?

Yes if you see it as a particle and not a electromagnetic wave.

A test can be performed easily.

If RF energy has mass

It then follows that a transmitting antenna will lose mass.
Likewise, a receiving antenna will gain mass.

The confirming experiment can be made by using a two small antennas in
an isolated environment. One is transmitting, and one receiving. If RF
energy is a particle - therefore mechanical force, the receiving antenna
must accumulate mass, and the transmitting antenna must lose it.

We do have the needed resolution of measurement to make that test.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Sep 5, 9:30*am, Mike Coslo wrote:
Gordon wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:cf5b3115-db1d-42a5-98cb-
:

Thus to state spin or torque is not a force
is truly rediculous. Let the insults come.

Of course torque is a force. *Ask any auto mechanic.

I am more familier with the Corriolis force as
it applies to weather. *IE: the spin of huricanes,
the rotation of weather around low pressure systems.

And that is what the Coriolis force is. It's a mechanical effect, and
not an electrical one.

Art is trying to convince us that EM energy is also a mechanical force,
consisting of particles that fly off the end of our antennas like little
turds. The ramifications of that means that everything we thought we
know about RF - and in fact all physics is completely wrong.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

That is correct and soon the teachings will reflect what I proposed

On Sep 5, 9:44*am, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:03 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:48 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Mike you forget.
I do not subscribe to the wave theory over the particle aproach.
I cannot see any other way to fit that "radiation is from the
acceleration of a charge". And I can not find any explanation of this
in any books. Only mass is able to have spin and at the same time
transport energy, at least to my mind.
So are you saying that FR energy has mass, or that it doesn't have spin?
Therefore accelaration is the
creation of two forces that are not in the same plain ala a shear
action where the combination of gravity and the Coriolis force are the
weakest forces known in the std model.
What is the acceleration of RF?
* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -
The speed of light.
Acceleration isn't expressed as C.

Does RF energy have mass?

Yes if you see it as a particle and not a electromagnetic wave.

A test can be performed easily.

If RF energy has mass

It then follows that a transmitting antenna will lose mass.
Likewise, a receiving antenna will gain mass.

The confirming experiment can be made by using a two small antennas in
an isolated environment. One is transmitting, and one receiving. If RF
energy is a particle - therefore mechanical force, the receiving antenna
must accumulate mass, and the transmitting antenna must lose it.

We do have the needed resolution of measurement to make that test.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

That is the presently accepted formula in science where atoms are
removed from the matrics of the radiator.
For me, all diamagnetic materials are completely covered with
particles that entered the solar stream from the Sun. As soon as they
are projected away from a radiator another takes its place, thus no
changes in mass.
When placing such an arrangement in boundary form on the outside is
the vectors of gravity and the Coriolis force. On the inside of the
arbitrary boundary
are the vectors of a moving charge together with a spin action of a
eddy current together with a particle at rest where all transforms in
to a projection with spin of the static particle.
This breaks the arbitrary boundary and where the arrival of another
static particle restores equilibrium.
This mechanism is the same as that from the sun when equilibrium is
broken by the escape of such particles because of the exchange of
potential energy to kinetic energy within its boundary.

On Sep 5, 7:47*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 4, 7:21 pm, Gordon wrote:

And the electrostatic field is a isolated phenomina that has
zero connections to laws of this Universe

Another golden quote! *thanks art, i needed a good laugh this morning!

See David,
I do take notice and remember your statements of the past
Check the archives for accuracy.
I too had a good laugh when you came up with that
as your position with respect to physics. What surprised me was that
you were seen as a role model and every one else followed in step. To
this day the group accepts your
position on physics that you cannot add a time varying field to
Gauss's law of Statics.
Two different things, you said, where one has no association with the
other so the premise that Gaussian law then becomes the same as
Maxwells laws is a faulty application and should not be done. Oh my!
What a short memory you have. And remember when you dissed that Doctor
from MIT who agreed with my premise and then everybody assasinated
him as a fool. As for me I am not going anywhere I holding to my
premise
Have a great holiday.

Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 5, 11:36*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of?
Mass with potential energy or what? This word is bandied around so
much
but its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture!
This approach has handicapped the advance in physics and radio for
over a century now.
Should we not explore a different avenue to see if answers lay
elsewhere.? Why do we resist change to so called accepted analogies
and theories? Why is this group so confident
that particles are not involved because it is an electrical thing? If
one accepts kinetic and potential energy why do they fight the
presence of mass?
Regards
Art

"Mike Coslo" wrote
...

Art is trying to convince us that EM energy is also a mechanical force,
consisting of particles that fly off the end of our antennas like little
turds. The ramifications of that means that everything we thought we know
about RF - and in fact all physics is completely wrong.

You have made a small mistake. Antennas are feed with the oscillating
voltage. So the little truds fly off and come back. It is normal
longitudinal wave.
The key problem is what radiate: the end of an antenna or something else.
What do you think?
S*

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote
...

Art is trying to convince us that EM energy is also a mechanical force,
consisting of particles that fly off the end of our antennas like little
turds. The ramifications of that means that everything we thought we know
about RF - and in fact all physics is completely wrong.

You have made a small mistake. Antennas are feed with the oscillating
voltage. So the little truds fly off and come back. It is normal
longitudinal wave.
The key problem is what radiate: the end of an antenna or something else.
What do you think?
S*


No, you've made a mistake ... again. EM waves are transverse waves in air
(i.e. around a normal antenna) not longitudinal waves (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_wave). Sound waves are
longitudinal because air pressure is a scalar, whereas electric and magnetic
fields are vectors - they have polarisation.

Also, antennas that radiate are fed with alternating current. The terminal
voltage is almost immaterial in comparison with the current - that's what
causes the radiation.

If you want to discover what radiates I suggest you read one of the normal
text books on the subject, like Kraus 'Antennas', and stop making up your
own versions!

Chris

"Dave" wrote
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Dave Platt" wrote
...
In article ,
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I forgot to connect my comments to the original question. Sorry(tm).
You're correct. There's no way to get a good isotropic radiator
pattern with a simple vertical radiator. However, you can still get
fairly close if you make the antenna sufficiently small relative to
the operating wavelength. As the physical antenna size approaches a
point radiator, the pattern starts to look rather spherical.

The difference in pattern between a half-wavelength dipole,
and an infinitesimally-short dipole (i.e. one whose length
approaches a point source) is actually quite small.

A dipole is always the two monopoles and never a point source. Only
monopole is a point source.
S*

there is no such thing as a monopole antenna. unless you have discovered
the magnetic monopole somewhere?

Chris wrote: "Monopole antennas are developed from dipoles by substituting
one of the
elements, often using a 'reflection' of the remaining element in a ground
plane. Their characteristics are different from those of the parent dipole
because of this substitution but they still have the same kind of
axially-symmetric radiation pattern, with linear polarisation and no
radiation in the direction of the end of the monopole."

Is he right?
S*

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.


So now we have left science, and as far as I can tell, have entered
religion.

I was totally destructed and reconstructed 100,000,000 times this morning.

Prove I wasn't. Art's particles did it. Every atom in my body has been
shed and replaced 10 times that while I typed this note.

Seriously, you guys want to de-construct everything we know and replace
it with religion? Ooookay, I was taught a long time ago to avoid
religious arguments, so have fun, kids.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -