Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/08/04
- Next message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Einstein's Doppler equation wrong?"
- Previous message: Lady Chatterly: "Re: WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, October 2004"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:50:05 GMT
"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2v7pbsF2hes38U1@uni-berlin.de...
:
: "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 don't think Maxwell had Energizer bunny electrons.
I used the same ones that went through the resistor. Just cos they
piled up
at the fat farad doesn't mean there wasn't DC going into it and DC
coming
out of it. Kirchoff treats it like a black box.
: >
: > : 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.
Particles travel forever, but only go one way.
Waves travel in all directions, but not forever.
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
"Hence wave impedance isn’t of interest here either - it would be
zero. In fact, for both the electrostatic and magnetostatic cases,
wave impedance is meaningless, because there are no waves-nothing is
changing, and field information doesn’t propagate."
I knew there was somehing weird about that guy. If it won't let a
wave through the impedance is infinite, not zero.
: 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?
Not really. There'll be another bus coming along behind.
The spherical shell of expanding energy moving away from the source
obeys the
inverse SQUARE law. At one parsec the same quantity of radiation
falling
on one square eyeball will fall on four square eyeballs at two
parsecs.
We need to be careful here, though. Dipoles don't radiate much
straight up. No market for it. Stellar radiation (and candlelight) is
spherical. Radio towers radiate disks of energy. That's more a 1/r
law.
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?
In the sense that the energy goes somewhere, yes. We don't use wooden
dipoles
or look for brownian motion in solids.
: I'll wager you haven't even checked to see which planets have the
best soil and climate for growing ornamentals?
I know some that won't. :)
Androcles.
: ;-)
: 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: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Einstein's Doppler equation wrong?"
- Previous message: Lady Chatterly: "Re: WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, October 2004"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Reply: jahn: "Re: Coulomb and Lorentz Gauge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
