"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 9, 10:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"tom"
se.net...



On 5/8/2010 2:04 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Yes. But one end of the dipole may have the better conditions to
propagate.

if it only moves in one direction as it would have
to in a monopole there is no wave only a simple field.

I am writing about a dipole with one end visible and the second
shielded.

In nature is always as you wrote. The both ands are always "visible".

Light is always directional. Radio waves can be omnidirectional.
Of course light is emitted by many dipoles. Radio waves by halve, one,
two
(circular polarity) or many (phase radar).
S*

Astonishing understanding of the subject.

Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*

light can be coherent, what do you think lasers are?

"The most monochromatic sources are usually lasers; such high
monochromaticity implies long coherence lengths (up to hundreds of meters).
For example, a stabilized helium-neon laser can produce light with coherence
lengths in excess of 5 m. Not all lasers are monochromatic, however (e.g.
for a mode-locked Ti-sapphire laser, ?? ? 2 nm - 70 nm). LEDs are
characterized by ?? ? 50 nm, and tungsten filament lights exhibit ?? ? 600
nm, so these sources have shorter coherence times than the most
monochromatic lasers". From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)

Up to now light is not coherent. But in future who knows.
S*

U¿ytkownik napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to
analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*

Babble.

Any electromagnetic radiation, from radio to gamma rays, can be coherent
or
not; it depends on how it is generated.

Did you get tired of being called a babbling, drooling, idiot on the
sci.physics.* groups with your rambling nonsense and now you are trying
your
luck in the amateur radio groups?

You were an idiot when you were posting to sci.physics.* and you are still
an idiot now that you are posting to rec.radio.amateur.*.

The term EM waves is traditional.
Light, sound and radio waves are simmilar. It is stated in all textbooks.
Are they wrote by idiots?
Look what wrote another idiot:
"This article is about general theory and electromagnetic phased array. For
the ultrasonic and medical imaging application, see phased array
ultrasonics. For the optical application, see phased-array optics." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array

Do you know even one example where Acoustic analogy do not work?
S*

"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

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


Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to
analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*

Babble.

Any electromagnetic radiation, from radio to gamma rays, can be coherent
or
not; it depends on how it is generated.

Did you get tired of being called a babbling, drooling, idiot on the
sci.physics.* groups with your rambling nonsense and now you are trying
your
luck in the amateur radio groups?

You were an idiot when you were posting to sci.physics.* and you are still
an idiot now that you are posting to rec.radio.amateur.*.

The term EM waves is traditional.
Light, sound and radio waves are simmilar. It is stated in all textbooks.

Having some similar charactristics does not mean EM and sound are the
same thing.

You are still a babbing idiot.

snip
Do you know even one example where Acoustic analogy do not work?
S*

All of them once you get past the grade school stage.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 9, 7:00*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 9, 10:14 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





In textbooks must be all theories.
In one chapter light (and radio waves) is like photons, in the next
chapter
like EM waves and in next like acoustics.

EM is the only example of transversal waves. So it must be in teaching
program.

But we try to help Peter. He wrote: "I begin to appreciate a comment made
by
a fellow radio amateur and
technician that antenna theory was 15% science and 85% black magic! "

It seems that you are sure that radio waves are transversal. It is
impossible to help you (Maxwell was full of doubts).
May be that somebody consider the Acoustic analogy and the black magic
disappear for him.
S*
maxwell may have been full of doubts, and Einstein wasn't able to see

the experiments that have proven his theories,

Maxwell did EM, Einstein did the photons and somebody else the acoustic
analogy.

but we have seen them

well tested and accepted over the years.

All of that three ( all three are in textbooks) are well tested and accepted
but only in some extend. May be that after some time only one will be fully
accepted. Which one do you designate?

if you think that 85% is

black magic then you have lots of learning to do to fill in that 85% gap in
your knowledge.

I designate the acoustic analogy and do not see any gaps.
They who designate EM or the photons are in constant trouble for more than
100 years.
S*

you may designate away, that doesn't make it any more correct. the
only things that the acoustic, water, and em radiation has in common
is the sinusoidal characteristics and that superposition works.
because of those two you can get similar interference patterns from
all 3 types of waves. that doesn't mean the underlying physics are
the same.

On May 9, 7:13*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 9, 10:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



"tom"
se.net...

On 5/8/2010 2:04 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Yes. But one end of the dipole may have the better conditions to
propagate.

if it only moves in one direction as it would have
to in a monopole there is no wave only a simple field.

I am writing about a dipole with one end visible and the second
shielded.

In nature is always as you wrote. The both ands are always "visible"..

Light is always directional. Radio waves can be omnidirectional.
Of course light is emitted by many dipoles. Radio waves by halve, one,
two
(circular polarity) or many (phase radar).
S*

Astonishing understanding of the subject.

Light is not coherent. So dipole radiate for very short time.
Radio waves are coherent and can be from one source. It is easy to analyse
them.
Are they transversal?
S*
light can be coherent, what do you think lasers are?

"The most monochromatic sources are usually lasers; such high
monochromaticity implies long coherence lengths (up to hundreds of meters).
For example, a stabilized helium-neon laser can produce light with coherence
lengths in excess of 5 m. Not all lasers are monochromatic, however (e.g.
for a mode-locked Ti-sapphire laser, ?? ? 2 nm - 70 nm). LEDs are
characterized by ?? ? 50 nm, and tungsten filament lights exhibit ?? ? 600
nm, so these sources have shorter coherence times than the most
monochromatic lasers". From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)

Up to now light is not coherent. But in future who knows.
S*

if you are going to be that critical then its hard to call radio waves
coherent either. every transmitter has some drift, phase noise, or
harmonic content that distorts the pure sine waveform one way or
another making them incoherent in longer periods, the same way there
is noise and incoherence in lasers... nothing is perfect.

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:


Do you know even one example where Acoustic analogy do not work?
S*



A high school experiment using a bell jar, alarm clock and a vacuum pump.

"joe" wrote ...
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:


Do you know even one example where Acoustic analogy do not work?
S*

A high school experiment using a bell jar, alarm clock and a vacuum pump.

Jim wrote: " Having some similar charactristics does not mean EM and sound
are the
same thing."

They are not the same. Sound propagate in gases, liquids and solids
Electric waves in the "aether".

But the source of sound is an increase of the pressure.
The source of electric waves is an increase of the voltage.

The voltage increases at the ends of a dipole.

The electric waves and sound propagate in metal wires, but with different
speeds.
Are electric waves in a wire also transversal?
S*

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 9, 7:00 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In textbooks must be all theories.
In one chapter light (and radio waves) is like photons, in the next
chapter
like EM waves and in next like acoustics.

EM is the only example of transversal waves. So it must be in teaching
program.

But we try to help Peter. He wrote: "I begin to appreciate a comment
made
by
a fellow radio amateur and
technician that antenna theory was 15% science and 85% black magic! "

It seems that you are sure that radio waves are transversal. It is
impossible to help you (Maxwell was full of doubts).
May be that somebody consider the Acoustic analogy and the black magic
disappear for him.
S*
maxwell may have been full of doubts, and Einstein wasn't able to see

the experiments that have proven his theories,

Maxwell did EM, Einstein did the photons and somebody else the acoustic
analogy.

but we have seen them

well tested and accepted over the years.

All of that three ( all three are in textbooks) are well tested and
accepted
but only in some extend. May be that after some time only one will be
fully
accepted. Which one do you designate?

if you think that 85% is

black magic then you have lots of learning to do to fill in that 85% gap
in
your knowledge.

I designate the acoustic analogy and do not see any gaps.
They who designate EM or the photons are in constant trouble for more than
100 years.
S*

you may designate away, that doesn't make it any more correct. the
only things that the acoustic, water, and em radiation has in common
is the sinusoidal characteristics and that superposition works.
because of those two you can get similar interference patterns from
all 3 types of waves. that doesn't mean the underlying physics are
the same.

Oscillating compressible gas create .the standing waves in the tube with the
closed end.
The oscillating compressible electron gas create the standing waves in open
circuit (antenna).
Is not the same physics?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


They are not the same. Sound propagate in gases, liquids and solids
Electric waves in the "aether".

There is no "aether".

snip babbling nonsense


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 8:42 PM, tom wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:25 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Charged particles can move at any speed from 0 to c and always produce
the
electric field. Why not?
Incorrect. A particle has mass, and cannot attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Should have said "charged particle" rather than "particle".

tom
K0TAR

You were correct the first time.

Nothing with mass can attain light speed and it doesn't matter if it is
charged or not.



I think you need to clarify.. zero "rest mass"..

A photon is a particle and moves at light speed. It is currently
believed to have zero rest mass, but it's tough to prove it
experimentally. (That is, an experiment can say it's less than some
very, very tiny number, but then you get into experimental error, etc.)

In any case, unlikely to have much to do with antennas.