Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge
From: jahn (suzysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 11/07/04
- Next message: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Why EPR is only a signpost towards controlled FTL action"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 18:26:18 -0500
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:aWvjd.3908$hp4.2379@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2v5k0qF2hk581U1@uni-berlin.de...
> : [snip]
> : > : >
> : >
> http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/nature_of_an_electromagnetic_wav.htm
> : > : > : Which is incorrect for both amplitude and phase.
> : > : >
> : > : > You can clearly see in the animation that ZERO energy is
> arriving
> : > at
> : > : > the detector, alternating with double energy.
> : > : > By phase-shifting the E and B fields the energy is constant.
> : > : >
> : > : > It should be like this:
> : > : > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CorrectWave.JPG
> : > : >
> : > : > (Excuse my rough drawing.)
> : > : No thats perfect. You fixed it for the near-field but now it's
> wrong
> : > for the far-field.... Ahhh I think.
> : > : Gettin to tired to check it.
> : > : When we put a receiving dipole into the far-field It has to
> shift
> : > back the way you modified.
> : > :
> : > : I know I know ya wanna say why can't it just stay the same? I
> think
> : > the answer is that we have lots and lots of far field data taken
> : > : with Faraday's shielded loops and short wires that indicate it
> : > doesn't.
> : > :
> : > : Of course... near and far-field would not differ if it didn't
> : > change.
> : > :
> : > : >
> : > : > I accept conservation of energy. I KNOW that current and
> voltage
> : > are
> : > : > NOT in phase as the diagram shows them to be in the animation.
> : > : > cos^2 + sin^2 = 1, straightforward Pythagoras. No magical
> aether
> : > : > required.
> : > : > Transmitters are designed to radiate energy. Transformers are
> : > designed
> : > : > to contain it. We don't put great lumps of iron around
> antenna.
> : > :
> : > : Actually we do but it it couple AC lighting power across an RF
> : > insulator.
> : > :
> : > :
> : >
> http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/workbench/rr-workbench65-01.jpg
> : > :
> : >
> http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/workbench/picts/rr-workbench50-2.jpg
> : > :
> : > : The primary and secondary are separated by about 200mm so
> : > "containment" wouldn't be my choice of words.
> : >
> : > LOL!
> : >
> : > : >
> : > : > : But try to imagine one of these stretched between emitter
> and
> : > : > detector (material objectes composed of spinning entities
> throught
> : > a
> : > : > : perfect vacuum. Is there any observational evidence that the
> B
> : > field
> : > : > can even exist more than few wavelengths from the emitter or
> : > : > : detector?
> : > : >
> : > : > Yes. We can communicate with Cassini which is orbiting Saturn
> and
> : > the
> : > : > wavelength is less than 9.5 AU.
> : > : > 1/d^2 applies, UNLESS you focus the signal into a beam. Then
> you
> : > can
> : > : > throw it away. There's a good reason to put a parabolic dish
> on
> : > the
> : > : > wrong side of the antenna.
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > : > Can't it diminish to zero in a few wavelength then
> reconstitute
> : > itself
> : > : > as it approaches[1] the material detector?
> : > : >
> : > : > Yes, if it driven by the E-field which is at a maximum when
> the
> : > : > B-field
> : > : > is zero, because then neither is zero at the same instant and
> both
> : > : > diminish
> : > : > to zero (twice) in ONE wavelength. If BOTH are zero at the
> same
> : > : > instant
> : > : > then energy is either not conserved or stored in aether.
> : >
> : > : Exactly! The drawing you modified actually shows points with no
> B
> : > field.
> : >
> : > By my drawing there are indeed points with no B-field, but only
> when
> : > there is a maximum E-field. The original has points with no
> B-field
> : > AND no E-field. There is no energy to being the next cycle.
> :
> : Hmmm. It might be instructive to ponder what one of those should
> look like for circular polarization from crossed dipoles.
> : http://www.n2.net/k6sti/attic.htm
> : Note that an omnidirectional pattern is achived with V shaped
> elements.
> : http://www.starantenna.com/fm_broadcast_antenna.htm
> : Ouch! that put another crick in my neck :-)
>
> Did mine, too! LOL!
> You can obviously come up with more antennae than Ford can produce
> versions of new cars; all this technology is wonderful, but I'm
> sticking to the basic principle that they all do the same thing, send
> and receive EM radiation, and the B-field is leading the E-field by 90
> degrees.
See below so ya don't shoot your self in the foot.
With that, I have a mental model with the B-field leaving the
> source at c, the local E-fields stationary wrt the source like an
> array of regularly spaced dipoles (or charged capacitors), no aether,
> c+v applies, doppler applies, antennae ring like bells when you hit
> em. It all works in my head. Waves break on the shore but not on the
> harbour wall. It doesn't change their frequency either way.
>
>
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > : Nope... I didn't see any storage faires in the vacuum. But the
> : > Coulomb coupling to distant matter is just like gravity but a
> whole
> : > : lot stronger.
> : >
> : > Ok... what is the Coulomb coupling between Earth and Saturn and
> what
> : > role does it play in communication? You seem to be talking about a
> DC
> : > effect when you compare it with gravity. You can pass AC through a
> : > capacitor
> : > when there is a DC potential across it and the farads don't care,
> : > unless there aren't enough of them or the frequuncy is too low.
> :
> : The comparison with gravity stem from the 2/r^2 path loss and
> isotropic field.
> : Passing "AC" and "DC" thru capacitiors is something Maxwell fretted
> about. We shouldn't.
> : Vacuum capacitors work just fine and "pass" no matter.
>
> I'm not fretting about it. A 1.5 volt cell, a 1 megohm resistor and
> 1000 uF
> out of my junk box will pass DC for quite a while. When it stops I can
> add
> another 1.5V cell and carry on doing it some more, and again and
> again, and you can't stop me, so there!
If you get your electrons the same place Maxwell did I'll laugh at you
... so there!
>
> : I read somewhere that the sun had a net positve charge and and not
> all stars are the same.
> : I can see you are headed to the wrong
> : side of town with that issue so I'll let you run it down if you
> really doubt that the earth and sun form a capacitor measureable in
> : Farads... well itty bitty Farads. 10^-24 ? LOL
>
>
> Yeah, but proving it might be difficult. I heard the moon was made of
> green cheese. It doesn't look green to me so I asked Neil Armstrong to
> taste it, but he refused. I guess the question is still open. Some
> scientist he turned out to be.
>
>
> : << Different processes produce and sustain the proton and electron
> belts. Galactic cosmic rays collide with atoms in Earth's
> : atmosphere and produce showers of secondary products. Some of these
> products are neutrons that subsequently decay into energetic
> : protons; thus, cosmic rays are the most important source of
> energetic particles in the inner zone. The telltale clue for the decay
> : source is the dominance of protons over other types of ions. Another
> clue is the relative stability of the inner zone, which results
> : from a combination of long particle lifetimes in this part of the
> magnetic field and the slowly varying cosmic ray input. >>
> : http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2003/02.html
>
> Yeah.... and some of 'em exceed c, too. Then we get Cherenkov
> radiation and that makes aurora.
>
>
> :
> : > : > When the B field hits the antenna, it drives a current up the
> : > pole.
> : > : > That current is in phase with the B-field.
> : >
> : > : That's the argument I used when we were analysing the Doppler
> shift.
> : > I said ~ the moving Rx antenna would encounter magnetic flux at
> : > : a greater rate~ and I questioned if the elements could still be
> the
> : > correct length for near luminal speeds.
> : > :
> : > : If we go through that exercise again, but instead insist that
> the
> : > incident E field must use the conductor to create the B field,
> : > : don't we get a different picture of frequency vs. wavelength?
> : >
> : > Ugh... now we are back to standing waves, which I'll divide into
> type
> : > I and type II.
> : > A type I standing wave is seen by a dragonfly hovering over a
> : > travelling crest, dipping his ickle tootsie in it, flying away
> from
> : > the ripple source.
> : > Wavelength but zero frequency.
> : > A type II standing wave is the kind we get in a long water tank.
> It
> : > has both frequency and wavelength. It has a reflected wave coming
> : > back. You can stand at a crest and watch it become a trough and
> then a
> : > crest again.
> : > A type I wave gives no energy to the dragonfly.
> : > A type II wave will yield energy to an electric buoy floating at a
> : > crest/trough,
> : > but not at a node.
> : > Radio transmitters are type I . Half the radiated energy comes
> back on
> : > each cycle from crest 1, and half goes on to crest 2. It's like
> : > ringing a bell. A receiving antenna is the other tine of a tuning
> : > fork, resonating in harmony.
> : > Fly out from the transmitter at c, no energy.
> : > A transmission line (despite what Andersen says) is a type II
> wave,
> : > reflecting a standing wave back to the antenna. There will be
> nodes
> : > where no signal is detectable.
> :
> : I am not familiar with that classification system but won't dwell on
> it since your not separating E and B fields.
>
> You wouldn't be, I just made it up. I needed a way to distinguish
> them.
> I could have called them type A and type B.
> The E-field is the height of the cork on the water, the B-field is its
> descent rate. Potential energy changing to kinetic. The kinetic leads
> the potential.
> Travel alongside the type I wave and the height doesn't change. Stand
> beside a type II and it does. We'd call both types "standing", unless
> you
> have some other name for one of them.
>
Better tools ahead... --->
--Burma Shave
>
> Look again at the
> : CP crossed dipoles because there is no question were the voltage
> peaks ocuur in space.
>
> Yes, but are they AC or DC peaks?
> A type I wave has a DC peak when you travel alongside it.
Ahh! the dragonfly. Doppler shift. Frequency is zero.
The wave didn't change "types".
> A type II wave has an AC peak and nodes.
> Now, obviously we are not travelling away from the transmitter at c,
> so we dealing with a type II standing wave if you can locate an AC
> peak a fixed distance from the antenna.
> In other words the antenna is resonating and reflecting the wave.
Better tools... just around the bend.
--Burma Shave
>
>
>
> : > :
> : > : I don't really like it because in the far-field, both elements
> (left
> : > and right) should see the net charge of the transmitting
> : > : antenna, which is always 0. Ya can't transport energy that way.
> :-/
> : >
> : > That problem vanishes once you accept:
> : > 1) an E- field can exist without [ether].
> : Yes... Vacuum capacitior work fine.
> : > 2) a B-field can exist without [ether].
> : That is the problem. The near/far E/B ratios for various structures
> don't confirm that.
> : > (Think TV tube - anode,cathode, DC voltage, and a bar magnet to
> mess
> : > up the shadow mask.)
> : That is thinking near field only. Blinders don't help ya see better.
> : > 3) A CONSTANTLY changing E-field induces a STEADY flux.
> : > When I say constantly changing, I don't mean sinusoidal.
> : > I mean it as ever increasing straight line, from 0 to a gazillion
> : > volts.
> : > In equation form,
> : > flux = dE/dt, where flux is a "current" of magnetism.
> : Faraday 101
> : >
> : > 4) A constantly changing B-field induces a STEADY voltage.
> : It exerts a force on a charge... usually a spinning one.
> : Faraday 102
> : >
> : > Now, because we do not have unlimited mass, but we CAN jump
> : > up and down on a spring, whether a trampoline or a bathroom scale,
> : > we can oscillate at a particular frequency.
> : > When the motion stops, the bathroom scale will record our true
> : > mass, not the bouncing reading we have to wait for to settle when
> : > we first step on it.
> : Indeed, I don't doubt any energy missing from the B component had
> better show up in the E component and there is no overhead for any
> : sharing they might do to balance the books.
>
> Ah, but there is a problem.
> Ripples on a pond have diminishing amplitude.
Approximately 1/r^2
> When that amplitude
> is less than the height of one molecule, we can't really call it a
> wave.
So we hire a mathematician and he will call it a probability wave
function for us and we don't have to use any bad words.
> It has become Brownian motion.The energy is shared over an area.
> For light from star, the energy is shared over the surface of an ever
> expanding sphere.
I am not sure very much sharing goes on after emission but what
you are saying is not that different from sum of all paths.
> And what do we observe of light from distant stars? Red shift.
I don't know much about Brownian motion but I do detect a hint of
Hubble heresy. Let me tie up one more loose end on Doppler,
below and then I'll try to grasp what Brownian has to do with
redshifts.
>
>
>
>
> Hmm... You seem to have caught my cold. That would confirm viruses are
> transmitted by computers.
Bad Joke! I am gettin a daily visit from that CWS trojan and can't find where it's reloader is hiding.
> Androcles.
I ran across this from the same author, Straus.
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
From:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
It say's a lot about what we need to consider in calculating wavelength/frequency for relative moving dipoles and loops. There is a
profund implcation for Einstein's trick of moving a box of Maxwell's ether along with the antenna(s)(ae) which you'll recall is why
he felt compelled to fiddle the clocks.
Your own experience with induction fields will confirm the near field predominance of E or H for loops or dipoles. I'll hazzard a
guess you're familiar with path reciprocity, where swapping transmitter and receiver indoor units, affect only the direction, not
the loss of a path. It is well tested and the preferred method of testing expensive hi power UHF arrays on a test range.
Now... Look at
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif again but imagine a *receving* antenna. There is no ether to affect the incoming
EM wave but you can clearly see from the diagram that the antenna structure dominates the space fully a wavelength out from a
structure of significant (1/2 wave ?) size.
Androcles wrote: "The energy is shared over an area"
How about a volume? The business of balancing incoming E and H fields, consistant with the dipole or loop characteristics doesn't
involve energy or mass transfer so there is no speed limit for these transactions in the near field region.
As you pointed out the dipole has signifacant Q so I am tending to the notion that it's length will predominate in determining the
wavelength irrespective of the doppler shifted frequency. It's as tho Maxwells box of ether moves with the antenna, but only
because the structure has some influence on the E H ratios in it's neighborhood.
So... with a little different view of Doppler shift, are you still interested in using pollen grains to explain the Hubble curve?
I'll wager you haven't even checked to see which planets have the best soil and climate for growing ornamentals?
;-)
Sue...
>
>
> :
> : >
> : >
> : > : All that aside... I think ya just shot a hole in my "spin fairy
> : > free" space and that doesn't bode well for an etherless society.
> : > : It's a beautiful day and I know just the pond where I can
> conduct
> : > further experiments so...
> : > : Hasta!
> : >
> : > Enjoy, its winter here so I'm envious.
> : > Androcles
> : The sun was warm but the inspiration cold.
> : Sue...
> : [snip]
> :
> :
> :
> :
>
>
- Next message: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Why EPR is only a signpost towards controlled FTL action"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
