Send EM radiation through a tiny hole?
Science Hobbyist
How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
smaller than one wavelength.")
I've always known one trivial answer to this question:
Place a 1/2-wave dipole antenna on one side of the
conducting plane, run wires from this antenna through
the tiny hole in the plane, then place a second 1/2-wave
dipole on the other side of the plane and connect the
wires to it. The first antenna acts as a receiver and
absorbs EM energy, which flows along the wires, through
the tiny hole, and drives the second antenna as a
transmitter. The two antennas have essentially "focused"
the Poynting-vector flux of the incoming EM waves so that
it passes through the tiny hole.
A naive description might read thus: "we turn the radio
waves into 'electricity' and then back into radio waves
again." This is wrong. Since electrical energy in a
circuit is actually composed of e-fields and b-fields
surrounding the circuit, the EM energy in the above
description never actually "changes" into "electricity",
instead it becomes coupled to the mobile charges within
the conductors and so gains the ability to pass through
a very small hole in a conductive plate.
Note that there is no lower limit on how small the
hole can be in an ideal case, but of course there are
many practical limits in a real world case. In the
real world, the size of the hole might only be a
few hundred times smaller than one wavelength.
Also note: if we think in terms of photons, then
the antennas are somehow guiding photons to flow
THROUGH the hole rather than being reflected from
the conductive plane. With the wires installed
in the hole, MORE photons can get through. This seems
silly. However, when analyzed in terms of EM fields, it
makes perfect sense. The EM energy flow surrounding
a 2-wire waveguide don't much care if the wires are
closely spaced, or if they pass through a tiny hole in
a conductive plate. The photons which make up those
EM fields around the wires will happily seek out the
tiny hole and flow right through with no problem,
regardless of their frequency.
----------------------------
Here's a second answer to the original question. To allow
EM waves to pass through the tiny hole in the infinite
conductive plate, just place some molecules in the hole,
but choose molecules which are resonant at the frequency
of the EM waves. Suppose the EM waves are microwaves, and
their frequency is at the ammonia resonance (think "ammonia
maser"). If we place some ammonia molecules in that tiny
hole, the molecules will strongly absorb the incoming
radiation, then they will re-radiate it. Part will be
scattered backwards, but part will move forwards through
the hole. The presence of those ammonia molecules has
allowed the EM radiation to pass through the hole.
The presence of the molecule can make a big difference.
Suppose we make our hole somewhat larger than a single
ammonia molecule. Without that molecule present, the
amount of EM wave energy which passes through such a
tiny hole will be vanishingly small. However, with the
molecule placed into the hole, relatively enormous
amounts of EM power suddenly can get through.
-----------
OK, here's a third option which doesn't involve molecules.
Place a very small lossless loop antenna in the hole
in the infinite conducting plate, and connect it to a
tiny capacitor. Tune the resulting LC circuit to
resoanate at the frequency of the incoming waves. The
loop antenna will build up a very large alternating
current at the resonant frequency. It will re-radiate
EM waves, with part of the energy scattering backwards
through the hole, but part being radiated out the other
side. The presence of the tuned circuit in the tiny
hole has allowed EM waves to pass through the hole.
Again note that there is no theoretical limit on how
small the hole can be. Obviously any PRACTICAL
applications will have many limits, but I'm not talking
about practical issues here, I'm talking "physics
homework questions" and "thought experiments."
Also note that the above LC circuit acts as a macroscopic
analogy for a molecular or an atomic oscillator.
-------
If the "energy sucking" controversy is any guide, then
one or two people will read this and understand the
concepts, while a huge number of others will become
enraged and launch personal attacks. This message is aimed
at those one or two people who actually ENJOY thinking.
The ones who use rage and ridicule to "defeat" ideas can
go fight with each other this time, since I'm going treat
their offensive behavior with the revulsion it deserves
and refuse to respond to their messages.
If scientists and engineers would take the following
problem seriously, I think the world would become a
very different place:
"I know that most men, including those at ease with
problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such
as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions
which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues,
which they have proudly taught to others, and which they
have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their
lives." -Tolstoy
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
bi...@eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Uncle Al
Science Hobbyist wrote:
>
> How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
> in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
> smaller than one wavelength.")
Near-field microscopy,
http://google.com/ "near-field microscopy" (with "quotes) 536 hits.
> I've always known one trivial answer to this question:
>
> Place a 1/2-wave dipole antenna on one side of the
> conducting plane, run wires from this antenna through
> the tiny hole in the plane, then place a second 1/2-wave
> dipole on the other side of the plane and connect the
> wires to it.
[snip]
They do it more trivially, generation as well as detection.
> Here's a second answer to the original question. To allow
> EM waves to pass through the tiny hole in the infinite
> conductive plate, just place some molecules in the hole,
> but choose molecules which are resonant at the frequency
> of the EM waves.
That gives you much better throughput in near-field microscopy. Been
there, done that.
[snip]
One of the attributes of a functional scientist is knowing what
giants' shoulders he stands upon.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Dirk Bruere
Science Hobbyist <bbe...@microscan.com> wrote in message
news:8c2sjm$ajq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
> in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
> smaller than one wavelength.")
>
Light can be sent down a fibre that tapers to a point less than a
wavelength, and still be guided by it.
Dirk
Steven B. Harris
<art...@kbnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>Science Hobbyist <bbe...@microscan.com> wrote in message
>news:8c2sjm$ajq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>
>> in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
>> smaller than one wavelength.")
>>
>Light can be sent down a fibre that tapers to a point less than a
>wavelength, and still be guided by it.
>
>Dirk
>
>
And why not? This happens even in a waveguide, for microwaves. You
get guided waves until one dimension of the guide falls below half a
wavelength or so, and even then the wave doesn't simply refuse to
propagate, but rather dies out in amplitude exponentially, with an
exponential factor comparable to the wavelength. These things are all
manifestations of the uncertainty principle for a photon's possible
energy in directions which are transverse to the direction of the
guide.
Mike Mccarty Sr
Science Hobbyist <bbe...@microscan.com> wrote:
)
)
) How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
) in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
) smaller than one wavelength.")
[snip]
) Also note: if we think in terms of photons, then
) the antennas are somehow guiding photons to flow
) THROUGH the hole rather than being reflected from
) the conductive plane. With the wires installed
[snip]
Ever heard of quantum tunnelling?
--
----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I don't speak for Alcatel <- They make me say that.
dvan...@cedar.net
<bbe...@microscan.com> wrote:
>
>
> How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
> in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
> smaller than one wavelength.")
>
> I've always known one trivial answer to this question:
> transmitter. The two antennas have essentially "focused"
> the Poynting-vector flux of the incoming EM waves so that
> it passes through the tiny hole.
Or maybe it is traveling as current in the wire.
I know, that's a boring explanation, and not nearly as much fun.
John Woodgate
sa.alcatel.com> inimitably wrote:
>In article <8c2sjm$ajq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Science Hobbyist <bbe...@microscan.com> wrote:
>)
>)
>) How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
>) in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
>) smaller than one wavelength.")
>
>[snip]
>
>) Also note: if we think in terms of photons, then
>) the antennas are somehow guiding photons to flow
>) THROUGH the hole rather than being reflected from
>) the conductive plane. With the wires installed
>
>[snip]
>
>Ever heard of quantum tunnelling?
I don't see that any of the configurations S H proposes involves quantum
tunnelling. They are all scalable from macroscopic size without any
change in operation. Quantum tunnelling would be a possible explanation
if the energy *only* went through holes in very thin plates.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk I wanted to make a fully-
automated nuclear-powered trawler,but it went into spontaneous fishing.
PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me.
De Guerin
Andre
E-mail returned to sender -- insufficient voltage.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> Science Hobbyist <bbe...@microscan.com> wrote in message
> news:8c2sjm$ajq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
> > in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
> > smaller than one wavelength.")
> >
Bilge
> Note that there is no lower limit on how small the
> hole can be in an ideal case, but of course there are
> many practical limits in a real world case. In the
> real world, the size of the hole might only be a
> few hundred times smaller than one wavelength.
>
You also no longer have a ground plane with just a hole in it.
You have a ground plane with a hole in it and two other surfaces
constrained to be at the same potential with respect to the ground
plane. It doesnt matter HOW you do it. For that matter, you've
done something similar by insisting the plane be grounded. You
are draining off the induced charge (or in condidering both
sides, causing it to move from one side to the other to
cancel the field).
> the antennas are somehow guiding photons to flow
> THROUGH the hole rather than being reflected from
> the conductive plane. With the wires installed
Sure. The photons absorbed by the dipole can obviously
not also deposit energy on the plane - so conservation
of energy hasn't been violated from that aspect. The
electrons that form the vertex with the arriving photon
gain a momentum from it and proceed to scatter off of
other electrons (by virtual photon exchange to produce
the net charge displacent that travels much faster than
scattering allows any single charge to move. A line of
dominoes can carry energy faster than one that has the
same energy but has to bounce through the same density
of other dominoes with only a small percent probability
favor a particular direction. The random thermal motion
is the same in every direction from the equipartion or
energy. Any momentum added is a net displacement of the
charge.
If you didn't try to confuse the issue with more and more
complicated ways of hiding the processes, the processes
would be easier to understand. You'd also realize why there
isn't much point in using such explanations except to satisfy
pseudo-pedantic arguments that purport to be seeking truth
to an inconsistency but is really only an inconsistency that
their portrayal of the phenomenon produces, not one that's
inherent.
> a 2-wire waveguide don't much care if the wires are
> closely spaced, or if they pass through a tiny hole in
> a conductive plate. The photons which make up those
> EM fields around the wires will happily seek out the
> tiny hole and flow right through with no problem,
> regardless of their frequency.
>
Of course they care. You cant dismiss the capacitance of the
wires. If you dont think that affects the signal produced
by the charges (i.e., impedance match) causing some frequencies
to be reflected (i.e., re-radiated). There are a number of
equivalen descriptions, but it requires that you use the
whole description, not just the convenient parts when it suits
you.
> Here's a second answer to the original question. To allow
> EM waves to pass through the tiny hole in the infinite
> conductive plate, just place some molecules in the hole,
> but choose molecules which are resonant at the frequency
> of the EM waves. Suppose the EM waves are microwaves, and
> their frequency is at the ammonia resonance (think "ammonia
> maser"). If we place some ammonia molecules in that tiny
> hole, the molecules will strongly absorb the incoming
> radiation, then they will re-radiate it. Part will be
Of course. It will be in proportion to the cross-section
of the molecules in relation to the area of the entire
incident radiation over the plane, too. And then it will
re-emit it.
> scattered backwards, but part will move forwards through
> the hole. The presence of those ammonia molecules has
> allowed the EM radiation to pass through the hole.
>
No, some would have passed through anyway. All the ammonia
does is absorb and re-emit. When it re-emits you have to
now consider the molecular bond to the plane unless you want
to knock the molecule to the other side where it re-emits
in all directions with a very small probability of coming back
the other way through the hole. If the molecule is bound to
the plane surrounding the hole, what happens depends upon
the bond. You need more than one absorption or emission to
be considered "resonant". Lasers and resonant absroption are
statistical phenomena.
Rather than assert your result is obvious, calculate it and
see if it differs from the classical limit. This hueristic
argument and inability to alter the hueristics to fit
reality is the same here as with the other antenna.
> The presence of the molecule can make a big difference.
No, it didn't make any difference. You didn't get any
amplification. It will be the same. (under your assumption
that they passed through the hole and didn't strike the
plane) the photons it absorbed and re-emitted went both directions.
> molecule placed into the hole, relatively enormous
> amounts of EM power suddenly can get through.
>
Show that is the case.
> about practical issues here, I'm talking "physics
> homework questions" and "thought experiments."
>
Then complete the assignment and produce quantitative
anwers. Conceptually, I'm sure you must think your
answers are reasonable. Put numbers to things and
prove it.
>
> If the "energy sucking" controversy is any guide, then
> one or two people will read this and understand the
> concepts, while a huge number of others will become
Assertion talks, numbers walk, to paraphrase a saying.
> enraged and launch personal attacks. This message is aimed
> at those one or two people who actually ENJOY thinking.
How do figure I know the explanation is wrong?
> If scientists and engineers would take the following
> problem seriously, I think the world would become a
> very different place:
>
> "I know that most men, including those at ease with
> problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
> even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such
Yes, but probably not where you imagine. You have only
to produce a well-defined situation that doesn't leave
any holes and show a result. Instead, you have gone off
on a tangent about philosophy and the some notion that
you must have the correct if you can set a record
for causing people to become impatient and impolite.
All questions may be worth answering, but not all are
worth asking.
Mark Mallory
Science Hobbyist wrote:
> If the "energy sucking" controversy is any guide, then
> one or two people will read this and understand the
> concepts, while a huge number of others will become
> enraged and launch personal attacks. This message is aimed
> at those one or two people who actually ENJOY thinking.
> The ones who use rage and ridicule to "defeat" ideas can
> go fight with each other this time, since I'm going treat
> their offensive behavior with the revulsion it deserves
> and refuse to respond to their messages.
Really Mr. Hobbyist, instead of accusing anyone who disagrees with you
of "rage" and "personal attacks", you should make an effort to
understand your subject better, and perhaps see where you have gone
wrong. You appear to have a blind spot to any errors in your
preconceived notions.
Remember, a good scientist TRIES to prove himself wrong...
William Beaty
: It doesnt matter HOW you do it. For that matter, you've
: done something similar by insisting the plane be grounded.
I've insisted that the plane be grounded?!!
: > the antennas are somehow guiding photons to flow
: > THROUGH the hole rather than being reflected from
: > the conductive plane. With the wires installed
:
: Sure. The photons absorbed by the dipole can obviously
: not also deposit energy on the plane - so conservation
: of energy hasn't been violated from that aspect.
Again with the COE! Apparently you're never going to live down the fact
that I turned out to be a professional electrical engineer, rather than an
unschooled lunatic raving about "free energy" and perpetual motion. If
you're waiting for me to start claiming that simple electrical engineering
concepts violate conservation of energy, you'll have to wait a very long
time.
: If you didn't try to confuse the issue with more and more
: complicated ways of hiding the processes, the processes
: would be easier to understand.
Confuse WHAT issue? What are you talking about?
Perhaps when "bilge" doesn't understand something, he angrilly accuses
opponents of obfuscation, rather than acting like any decent human being
and saying "I didn't understand that, could you make it clearer."
: > "I know that most men, including those at ease with
: > problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
: > even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such
:
: Yes, but probably not where you imagine. You have only
: to produce a well-defined situation that doesn't leave
: any holes and show a result. Instead, you have gone off
: on a tangent about philosophy and the some notion that
: you must have the correct if you can set a record
: for causing people to become impatient and impolite.
"Causing people to become impatient and impolite?" BINGO!
There it is. It's the flamer psychology in all its pustulent glory. "My
blatent misbehavior is entirely justified, because you MADE me do it."
People of integrity take responsibility for their actions. If you act
nasty on newsgroups, and if you accuse me of MAKING you act impolite, then
in my eyes you are a person of no integrity whatsoever. You're just a
flamer, just like every other flamer, who believes that all their
nastiness and explosions of rage are perfectly justified, since other
people are MAKING them behave that way.
And another thing a flamer will never do under any circumstances.
Apologize for their behavior. Never ever will they do this, since their
rotten behavior is "not their fault!"
For this reason I refuse to discuss anything with you, except to point out
your abysmal behavior. I find your behavior on newsgroups
unprofessional at least, and needlessly hostile, abusive, and offensive at
most. You should be ashamed of yourself.
If you want some advice, I'd suggest you sign your name to your messages
and stop hiding behind anonymity. Anonymity is extremly seductive, and it
easily lets us engage in all sorts of reprehensible behavior which we
would never engage in if our friends were watching. One sign of people of
high character is how they behave when hiding behind a mask. (But perhaps
I am wrong, any you behave just as nasty to everyone around you in real
life as well.)
--
((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
Robert
William Beaty wrote:
> Again with the COE! Apparently you're never going to live down the fact
> that I turned out to be a professional electrical engineer, rather than an
> unschooled lunatic raving about "free energy" and perpetual motion.
This is not necessarily a mutually exclusive characterization!
Bilge
>
>I've insisted that the plane be grounded?!!
>
and the second antenna, since you set up a charge distribution
in the sheet. When are you going to quit with the detours?
>Again with the COE! Apparently you're never going to live down the fact
>that I turned out to be a professional electrical engineer, rather than an
I really don't care one way or another. Wrong is wrong no matter
how much paper you have as insurance.
>you're waiting for me to start claiming that simple electrical engineering
>concepts violate conservation of energy, you'll have to wait a very long
>time.
So, logically, that means you're an electrical engineer that
doesn't believe in electrical engineering concepts.
>Perhaps when "bilge" doesn't understand something, he angrilly accuses
>opponents of obfuscation, rather than acting like any decent human being
>and saying "I didn't understand that, could you make it clearer."
>
OK. I don't understand why you're obfuscating the issue and
taking tangents to avoid putting numbers on your drawing.
>
>"Causing people to become impatient and impolite?" BINGO!
>
>There it is. It's the flamer psychology in all its pustulent glory. "My
>blatent misbehavior is entirely justified, because you MADE me do it."
>
No. It's justified because I chose to be impolite and impatient.
Just as you chose to troll for it.
>People of integrity take responsibility for their actions. If you act
>nasty on newsgroups, and if you accuse me of MAKING you act impolite, then
Get over it. I didn't accuse you of anything.
>in my eyes you are a person of no integrity whatsoever. You're just a
Ask me if I'm going to lose any sleep over it.
>flamer, just like every other flamer, who believes that all their
No. I'm better at it.
>nastiness and explosions of rage are perfectly justified, since other
>people are MAKING them behave that way.
>
No. You seem to be the one that's enraged. I'm just get impatient
and I dont have to be polite about it.
>And another thing a flamer will never do under any circumstances.
>Apologize for their behavior. Never ever will they do this, since their
What point would there be. I'd just have to do it again later.
>For this reason I refuse to discuss anything with you, except to point out
>your abysmal behavior. I find your behavior on newsgroups
You refuse to discuss anything because you don't know anything. This
is just a convenient excuse. Feel free to keep attributing to me
statements I never made. You seem to have a knack for it.
>unprofessional at least, and needlessly hostile, abusive, and offensive at
>most. You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
I'll let you do it for me. That will give you more time to avoid
the energy sucking non-antenna.
>If you want some advice, I'd suggest you sign your name to your messages
>and stop hiding behind anonymity. Anonymity is extremly seductive, and it
No. I don't want your advice. I can see what it's done for you.
>easily lets us engage in all sorts of reprehensible behavior which we
There's nothing reprehensible about my behaviour. It just eats
at you that you don't haave anything personal to leverage your way out
providing numbers that show your energy sucking antenna concept
is a crock. So far, you are the only person that's ever made an
issue out of it. But, thanks. Now I'm certain that the best way
to deal with flakes is to make sure I don't make harrassing me
easy.
I also never get junk mail. Just quickly weighing the benefits,
I provide all sorts of information no one but you wants and in
return I get junkmail, and give you an opportunity to be an
ass at your own convenience without an audience rather than
in the newsgroup. Gee what a deal. Still, I'll have to pass
on such a wonderful opportunity. It's too much like buying
and energy sucking antenna. The value just isn't there.
>would never engage in if our friends were watching. One sign of people of
>high character is how they behave when hiding behind a mask. (But perhaps
>I am wrong, any you behave just as nasty to everyone around you in real
>life as well.)
No perhaps about it. You're batting 1000 in the wrong department.
William Beaty
: William Beaty wrote:
: > Again with the COE! Apparently you're never going to live down the fact
: > that I turned out to be a professional electrical engineer, rather than an
: > unschooled lunatic raving about "free energy" and perpetual motion.
: This is not necessarily a mutually exclusive characterization!
Obviously not, and in truth I'm a "schooled" lunatic who believes that an
unsuspected energy source MIGHT exist, and crackpots or hobbyists might
stumble over it, and therefore and believe that they've invented a PM
device.
This however has absolutely nothing to do with "energy sucking antennas".
They do not violate COE. They do not violate ANY known physics, and as
others have shown, the simple concepts are already contained in
antenna-design textbooks. The "energy-sucking" done by a tiny resonant
antenna (and by atoms/molecules) is simply an alternate viewpoint on
well-known phenomenon. The main value is this:
In physics, if you don't have three or four ways of understading
something, then you don't really understand it.
----------
There's another possible reason for this whole controversy: an educational
philosophy which I lable "The Cult of the One Right Answer."
Modern education has an unfortunate tendency to teach people that only one
answer is "right", and by defintion, all other answers must be "wrong".
Especially in the sciences there is only one acceptable numerical result,
and few science exams ask us to answer essay questions where we must
explain a phenomenon from several different perspectives. The closest we
come to this is in QM, where the fields/particles duality rubs our
noses in the need for more than just a single way of explaining things.
Those who worship the "One Right Answer" will take the above quote as
total heresy. They believe that there is only ***ONE*** way of
understanding anything in physics. They believe that any other viewpoint
is an obvious error which must be exposed. If no actual error is found,
then the alternate viewpoint must be belittled and desparaged, because it
threatens their whole worldview. In this way even a contemporary
scientist can become a "true believer" who lashes out at any threatening
"heresies."
Of course this says nothing about whether there are still mistakes in my
"energy sucking" stuff. But it might explain some of the rage that many
people experience when reading it.
If people believe that whenever an explanation is DIFFERENT than the ones
in all the textbooks, it obviously must be WRONG, then they are
worshippers of the One Right Answer. They probably will do very well on
physics exams, but I suspect that such people tend to make lousy
researchers. Decades of this "One Right Answer" belief can cause a kind
of closemindedness, and it certainly can harm one's creativity. It is the
very definition of the "inside the box" style of thinking.
It's a belief that thinking "outside the box" is dangerous, because it
is always wrong.
--
((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
James Hunter
Bilge wrote:
> William Beaty said some stuff about
> >
> >I've insisted that the plane be grounded?!!
> >
>
> That simplifies life a lot if you dont. You can ditch the wire
> and the second antenna, since you set up a charge distribution
> in the sheet. When are you going to quit with the detours?
>
> >Again with the COE! Apparently you're never going to live down the fact
> >that I turned out to be a professional electrical engineer, rather than an
> >unschooled lunatic raving about "free energy" and perpetual motion. If
>
> I really don't care one way or another. Wrong is wrong no matter
> how much paper you have as insurance.
>
> >you're waiting for me to start claiming that simple electrical engineering
> >concepts violate conservation of energy, you'll have to wait a very long
> >time.
>
> So, logically, that means you're an electrical engineer that
> doesn't believe in electrical engineering concepts.
Since energy is a holistic philosopher "concept", it rightly has nothing to
with engineering, except in the context of raising the "thinkers"
electric bills once-a-year.
Bilge
> In physics, if you don't have three or four ways of understading
> something, then you don't really understand it.
>
From the numbers I don't see, I take that leaves you with
three or four.
>----------
>
>There's another possible reason for this whole controversy: an educational
>philosophy which I lable "The Cult of the One Right Answer."
>
No wonder you're confused. You swapped the word ordering and
changed the semantics. It's "The Cult of the one Answer Right".
We believe 1 correct answer is better than 4 wrong ones.
>Modern education has an unfortunate tendency to teach people that only one
>answer is "right", and by defintion, all other answers must be "wrong".
>Especially in the sciences there is only one acceptable numerical result,
Or, the possibilty exists that the person with the new way to
look at something is just plain wrong -- but, it would be
a shame to force you to change the syle of making a problem as
hard as possible when faced with a multitude of intuitive, correct
and simple ones.
>Those who worship the "One Right Answer" will take the above quote as
>total heresy. They believe that there is only ***ONE*** way of
There is. The right way. Since all correct answers are equivalent,
it's sort of a tautology.
>Of course this says nothing about whether there are still mistakes in my
>"energy sucking" stuff. But it might explain some of the rage that many
>people experience when reading it.
>
>
Of course not. When you won't produce the information lacking in
the drawings to render it anything less than ambiguous, what do
you expect. I don't believe in the psychic network either.
>If people believe that whenever an explanation is DIFFERENT than the ones
>in all the textbooks, it obviously must be WRONG, then they are
>worshippers of the One Right Answer. They probably will do very well on
Uh, those pages on your website that you so thoughtfully provided
URL's for in one of your posts are about the eptiome of your
"One Right Answer" mantra. You manage to disparage an entire
array of reasonable physical pictures for your own which only
bury the information elsewhere and proclaim the others in
nice bold letters as WRONG. I take it hypocrisy is not a
problem for you. You haven't changed any of that to fit
your argument have you? I'd say your vehement (I confess,
I assumed the exclanation points used liberally throughout
and the continual admonishments were an expression of
incredulity that someone would dare to explain something
or publish a book without seeking your opinion.) How many
times do you state a perfectly valid explanation is wrong
and replace it with one having the same problem? I always
at least attempt to put solutions in terms of the picture
the person asking the question uses. It's not my fault if
it doesn't come out with the same result. If it did, they
wouldn't have a problem in the first place.
>physics exams, but I suspect that such people tend to make lousy
>researchers. Decades of this "One Right Answer" belief can cause a kind
>of closemindedness, and it certainly can harm one's creativity. It is the
>very definition of the "inside the box" style of thinking.
>
>It's a belief that thinking "outside the box" is dangerous, because it
>is always wrong.
>
But yours is more like "outside of the klein bottle".
James Black
On 1 Apr 2000, William Beaty wrote:
> Robert (rom...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
>
> : William Beaty wrote:
>
> : > Again with the COE! Apparently you're never going to live down the fact
> : > that I turned out to be a professional electrical engineer, rather than an
> : > unschooled lunatic raving about "free energy" and perpetual motion.
>
> : This is not necessarily a mutually exclusive characterization!
>
>
> Obviously not, and in truth I'm a "schooled" lunatic who believes that an
> unsuspected energy source MIGHT exist, and crackpots or hobbyists might
> stumble over it, and therefore and believe that they've invented a PM
> device.
>
> This however has absolutely nothing to do with "energy sucking antennas".
> They do not violate COE. They do not violate ANY known physics, and as
> others have shown, the simple concepts are already contained in
> antenna-design textbooks. The "energy-sucking" done by a tiny resonant
> antenna (and by atoms/molecules) is simply an alternate viewpoint on
> well-known phenomenon. The main value is this:
>
> In physics, if you don't have three or four ways of understading
> something, then you don't really understand it.
I decided to make a comment here, as it may be useful.
Outside of physics most of the natural sciences do seem to go with the
one-answer idea, and that isn't going to be true, and you can find that in
original writings also.
My research is currently on diffintegrals of arbitrary order, so you can
take a integral of 3/2 order, which is between a first-order integral and
a second order integral. By going along this line of thinking you will see
that there are many ways to find answers to some common problems, and see
old problems in new light.
Joseph Liouville did a lot of work in the area in 1832. If you read
Maxwell's writings you will see that when applying Ampere's law that there
was an extra term that he explained away by using the experiments that
Ampere had done.
My point is that there are many ways to do similar problems, for example
decouple the E and H fields, depending on the gauge you use, but at times
there will be some things that are just "wrong".
For example, I can categorically state that it is impossible to build
and demonstrate a perpetual motion machine, as that would violate a few
laws. People will claim to have built one, but they didn't find a secret
energy source to power it.
As to unsuspected energy sources, highly unlikely, outside of the EM
fields that we know of, and the results of quantum electrodynamics.
If you want to get a better idea as to how some of these ideas work on a
microscopic level then you should look at quantum electrodynamics and on
using relativity to explain electromagnetism.
Well, have fun with your arguing.
--
========================================================================
James Black (Elec Eng Graduate student)
e-mail: jbl...@ieee.org http://www.eng.usf.edu/~black/index.html
For my public key: finger -l bl...@eng.usf.edu
"Class is an aura of confidence that is being sure without being
cocky. Class has nothing to do with money. Class never runs scared.
It is self-discipline and self-knowledge. It's the sure-footedness that
comes with having proved you can meet life."
~ Ann Landers ~
************************************************************************
John Woodgate
inimitably wrote:
>There's another possible reason for this whole controversy: an educational
>philosophy which I lable "The Cult of the One Right Answer."
On the other side of the 'Two Cultures' divide, Peter Ustinov wrote
about this, in the context of a pre-WW2 fee-paying school for under 13s
- a British 'prep-school'.
Boys were asked to 'Name a Russian composer.' The One Right Answer was,
of course, 'Tchaikovsky', and P.U. did not get credit or even marks for
'Rimsky-Korsakov'.
Bilge
Re: Send EM radiation through a tiny hole? to usenet:
><8c5k1f$dfq$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, William Beaty <bi...@eskimo.com>
>inimitably wrote:
>>There's another possible reason for this whole controversy: an educational
>>philosophy which I lable "The Cult of the One Right Answer."
>
>On the other side of the 'Two Cultures' divide, Peter Ustinov wrote
>about this, in the context of a pre-WW2 fee-paying school for under 13s
>- a British 'prep-school'.
>
>Boys were asked to 'Name a Russian composer.' The One Right Answer was,
>of course, 'Tchaikovsky', and P.U. did not get credit or even marks for
>'Rimsky-Korsakov'.
The analogy only holds when comparing equivaalent situations. The more
apropriate analogy would have missing the question for answering it
with Lassie, who was neither a classical composer, russian. nor born
in the same century. Appealing to "there are many right answers" to
defend one that is blatantly wrong not only is self-serving, it's
hypocritical since it adds rather than diminsishes the confusion
the person presenting it has presented as a reason for dreaming
it up. If you want to eliminate confusion, check your work first
or qualify it as unchecked instead of resorting to the david vs.
goliath tactic to further confuse people. That only perpetuates the
idea that theories are "just" theories and subject to whimsical
alteration. There are as many right ways to look at something as can
be made consistent. Any inconsistency implies one or both is wrong.
No amount of whining will make something that is incorrect become
correct. Culture has zero to do with being right, since politically
correct doesn't apply here.
It would appear in this case, that the alleged "one right answer"
contingent has so far provided all of the information that would
allow anyone purporting this "energy sucking" stuff is true to do
so within the context of the very model provided by the proponent
as well as provide an analysis of what some of the results will
be (e.g., the outer plates are superfluous). I'm sorry if, when
asked to agree with the results of something that isn't completely
specified that the answer is no. I could save the effort altogether
and agree to the whole concept otherwise. Live with it. While this
might be a "thought" experiment, I don't think that "thought" means
in lieu of pen and paper. I recommend using both. If you want to
do more than make some ethereal philosophical musing concerning right
and wrong answers, you can do it more effectively by simply proving
your case or disproving the objections. If nothing else, you'll
learn something by having to work out the details.
Steven B. Harris
<j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Boys were asked to 'Name a Russian composer.' The One Right Answer
>was,of course, 'Tchaikovsky', and P.U. did not get credit or even
>marks for 'Rimsky-Korsakov'.
In physics this story is typified by whatziname's story in the late
60's, printed in some physics ed journal or other, about a student who
is asked to measure the height of building with a barometer. After
going through various physical exercises, none of which was the one the
test was looking for, the student finally admits he knows one last way:
you go to the building superintendant and say: "Mr. superintendent, I
have a very fine barometer here. If you can tell me the exact height
of this building, I will GIVE you this barometer..." This has a
certain Feynmanesque quality, I always thought.
Steve
Do you like Rachmaninoff?
On and off
Rimsky?
Of Korsakov
Gustav Maller?
What about Fats Waller?
..
--Sylvia Fine
Robert
proof of the existence of a finite subcovering for a type of set in a more
generally defined compact topological space by creating a mapping to the reals
which was continuous in enough of a way to invoke the sequential compactness that
follows from the Dadekind [sp] cut definition [axiomatic] of this number system.
The professor, who was otherwise very nice, did not understand it and marked the
answer as wrong. There was just no getting through to him- he was completely
uneducable in this respect. His behavior was: I don't understand what you're
doing; it is nothing I have ever seen before; so it must be wrong. This was the
last straw for this university- the other straws being that the average class
size was two people [ on a campus of 16,000] if the course title did not contain
the words "Introduction to...", and I left the dump the following semester.
John Woodgate wrote:
> <8c5k1f$dfq$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, William Beaty <bi...@eskimo.com>
> inimitably wrote:
> >There's another possible reason for this whole controversy: an educational
> >philosophy which I lable "The Cult of the One Right Answer."
>
> On the other side of the 'Two Cultures' divide, Peter Ustinov wrote
> about this, in the context of a pre-WW2 fee-paying school for under 13s
> - a British 'prep-school'.
>
> Boys were asked to 'Name a Russian composer.' The One Right Answer was,
> of course, 'Tchaikovsky', and P.U. did not get credit or even marks for
> 'Rimsky-Korsakov'.
Edward Green
>
>Science Hobbyist wrote:
>>
>> How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
>> in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
>> smaller than one wavelength.")
>
>Near-field microscopy,
>http://google.com/ "near-field microscopy" (with "quotes) 536 hits.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Rich Grise
Measure the height of the barometer (it's a mercury barometer, right?)
and the length of its shadow. Measure the shadow of the building, and
they're proportional.
2. Drop the barometer off the top of the building and time its
descent.
Cheers!
Rich
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> In <50pbrtBU...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> John Woodgate
> <j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Boys were asked to 'Name a Russian composer.' The One Right Answer
> >was,of course, 'Tchaikovsky', and P.U. did not get credit or even
> >marks for 'Rimsky-Korsakov'.
>
Bilge
>uneducable in this respect. His behavior was: I don't understand what you're
>doing; it is nothing I have ever seen before; so it must be wrong. This was the
>last straw for this university- the other straws being that the average class
>size was two people [ on a campus of 16,000] if the course title did not contain
>the words "Introduction to...", and I left the dump the following semester.
>
There is no parallel here. I understand what he's doing as do many of
the respondants. I have provided detailed information regarding the
shortcomings of the antenna model that has been posted, purportedly
for exacty that reason. Many other respondants have provided alternative
explanations that were just fine. Apparently only feedback which further
promotes the idea is of scientific merit. I provided the explicit means
to prove or disprove any of the above through the exact apparatus de-
scribed to do exactly that -- i.e., by the person doing the most to
avoid anything with a concrete result which is also the person claiming
everyone that has a problem with his description of an antenna is narrow-
minded. There are only so many ways to look at q = CV before the fact
that C is defined this way slows down the creativity and forces one to
recast E&M to match whatever additional features one wants to add to
alter the definition. The best argument to the contrary is to help
prove him right. Otherwise, there is no basis at this time for asserting
this is at all similar to what you've desccribed.
Jim Carr
>
> How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
> in an infinite conducting plane?
You cause the EM waves, after having caused the hole in the
conductor, which you presumably had to cause as well.
My point is that *you* cannot make the wave do anything. It
just "is", and it follows physical laws. Change the question,
as you do in the next paragraph, and you have a new question
that is also answered by those physical laws.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Robert
started by John Woodgate and, as usual, had no idea that my post would be interpreted
as a characterization of the replies in the main thread. I have enjoyed your posts and
do not view them this way.
-Robert
Robert
Bilge
>
Can I use anything else (incidentals - not for cheating the
question?) If so, yes, but I'll defer for a few posts.
Rich Grise
About the weight of the car - theoretically, yes. With a strong enough
ruler, you'd balance the car on one end, put the ruler on some kind of
fulcrum, and put a known weight at the other end of the ruler. I think
they call this a "balance-beam" scale, but don't quote me on this (or
quote me if I'm way off the mark, for purposes of humor.)
Cheers!
Rich
Roy McCammon
>
> How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
> smaller than one wavelength.")
>
>
> conducting plane, run wires from this antenna through
> the tiny hole in the plane, then place a second 1/2-wave
> dipole on the other side of the plane and connect the
> wires to it.
Sure enough. This is a primary way for EMI to into
and out of enclosures.
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
John Woodgate
Gregory L. Hansen
John Woodgate <j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><38E85FFE...@entheosengineering.com>, Rich Grise <off-
>du...@entheosengineering.com> inimitably wrote:
>>Bilge wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert said some stuff about
>>> Re: Send EM radiation through a tiny hole? to usenet:
>>> >Can you measure the weight of your car using a ruler?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Can I use anything else (incidentals - not for cheating the
>>> question?) If so, yes, but I'll defer for a few posts.
>>>
>>
>>About the weight of the car - theoretically, yes. With a strong enough
>>ruler, you'd balance the car on one end, put the ruler on some kind of
>>fulcrum, and put a known weight at the other end of the ruler. I think
>>they call this a "balance-beam" scale, but don't quote me on this (or
>>quote me if I'm way off the mark, for purposes of humor.)
>>
>Would S. Milosovic or S. Hussein be a strong enough ruler?
On a weightlifting web site somewhere I saw a video of a guy that balanced
a car on his head. The car was on a forklift. He got under it, picked up
the car, walked to the middle of the room with a car on his head, and then
took his hands away and balanced it. Then he brought it back to the
forklift. He had a very big neck.
Maybe he could be the fulcrum.
--
"We aim to please. So you aim, too, please."
Robert
ton of bricks on his head to the work site. And yes-he does have a 30 inch
neck. And yes he will one day kill himself with this car stunt.
Robert
your car with an egg timer?
Robert wrote:
> Can you measure the weight of your car using a ruler?
>
Chic McGregor
Hansen) wrote:
>In article <FogU87A$NK64...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
>John Woodgate <j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>><38E85FFE...@entheosengineering.com>, Rich Grise <off-
>>du...@entheosengineering.com> inimitably wrote:
>>>Bilge wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robert said some stuff about
>>>> Re: Send EM radiation through a tiny hole? to usenet:
>>>> >Can you measure the weight of your car using a ruler?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Can I use anything else (incidentals - not for cheating the
>>>> question?) If so, yes, but I'll defer for a few posts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>About the weight of the car - theoretically, yes. With a strong enough
>>>ruler, you'd balance the car on one end, put the ruler on some kind of
>>>fulcrum, and put a known weight at the other end of the ruler. I think
>>>they call this a "balance-beam" scale, but don't quote me on this (or
>>>quote me if I'm way off the mark, for purposes of humor.)
>>>
>>Would S. Milosovic or S. Hussein be a strong enough ruler?
>
>On a weightlifting web site somewhere I saw a video of a guy that balanced
>a car on his head. The car was on a forklift. He got under it, picked up
>the car, walked to the middle of the room with a car on his head, and then
>took his hands away and balanced it. Then he brought it back to the
>forklift. He had a very big neck.
>
>Maybe he could be the fulcrum.
>
Hey! if he was the king of somewhere, that would do it.
regards
chic
Bilge
Re: Send EM radiation through a tiny hole? to usenet:
>your car with an egg timer?
>
Wait for it to rust out and use the uncertainty principle
to convert the lifetime? I'm dubious.
Steven B. Harris
writes:
>Okay, that was handled in short order. Now how do you measure the
weight of
>your car with an egg timer?
What *is* an egg-timer, exactly?? A little hour-glass for 3-minute
boiled eggs? As a boomer, I think you're talking about something from
before my time.
Rich Grise
>
> Okay, that was handled in short order. Now how do you measure the weight of
> your car with an egg timer?
>
Take the car way up high, like 80,000 feet, and drop it. Use the egg
timer
to determine terminal velocity, which should be proportional its weight
divided by the cross-sectional area. Or the square of one or the other
or
both of them.
Of course, you probably won't be able to use the car very well after
that
sudden stop.
Cheers!
Rich
mARK bLOORE
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
>In <38E90653...@earthlink.net> Robert <rom...@earthlink.net>
>writes:
>>
>>Okay, that was handled in short order. Now how do you measure the
>weight of
>>your car with an egg timer?
>
>
> What *is* an egg-timer, exactly?? A little hour-glass for 3-minute
>boiled eggs? As a boomer, I think you're talking about something from
>before my time
that was ancient history. the modern egg timer turns the stove
off when the egg is done, keeps track of your evaluations of the
egg's quality so it can adjust cooking times in the future,
and connects to the internet to get the latest information on
egg nutritive values vis-a-vis your body mass index and to order
more eggs before you run out.
you measure the weight of your car using an egg timer by
enclosing the car in a standard container and then measuring how
far the car sinks in a liquid of known viscosity in
three minutes.
--
mARK bLOORE (ma...@pobox.SPAMSBANE.com)
remove the .SPAMSBANE from my address when replying
John Fields
>
> There was just no getting through to him- he was completely
> doing; it is nothing I have ever seen before; so it must be wrong.
---
From some of your posts it seems a little of him must have rubbed
off on you!-)
---
John Fields Austin Instruments, Inc.
El Presidente Austin, Republic of Texas
"I speak for the company" http://www.austininstruments.com
John Fields
>
> Okay, that was handled in short order. Now how do you measure the weight of
> your car with an egg timer?
---
Let the air out the tires and measure how long it takes for the tires to
go flat.
---
John Fields, Austin Instruments, Inc.
Bilge
Re: Send EM radiation through a tiny hole? to usenet:
>your car with an egg timer?
>
Wait until your car rusts out then calculate the
mass from the lifetime.
.
George J Bugh
the poynting vector of their electric and magnetic fields. Feynman tried
but was unable to describe an electron this way. I believe her tried to
show a poynting vector that was circular around the electron. However it
might work if a circular flow of energy was shown to be a summation of 2
spiralss of energy, a spiral "whirlpool" of energy into the center
summed with a spirial "whirlpool" back out from the center. Both spiral
flows of energy would be passing through each other. There would not be
a solid object that is the electron in the center. The electron would
simple be the summation of this in and out whirlpool flow of energy. The
fields would be in tention fighting against each other and the summation
of any external EMF with the internal EMFs in tention would make
manifest the property of interia dues to the forces fighting a change in
the position of the "whirlpools" of energy.
dvan...@cedar.net wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:00:16 GMT, Science Hobbyist
> <bbe...@microscan.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > How can we cause EM waves to travel through a tiny hole
> > in an infinite conducting plane? ("Tiny" means "much
> > smaller than one wavelength.")
> >
> > I've always known one trivial answer to this question:
> > transmitter. The two antennas have essentially "focused"
> > the Poynting-vector flux of the incoming EM waves so that
> > it passes through the tiny hole.
>
> Or maybe it is traveling as current in the wire.
> I know, that's a boring explanation, and not nearly as much fun.
George J Bugh
discussions and constructive arguments here. Most people don't want to
really pay attention to new ideas. Your quote from Tolstoy is perfect. I
agree with it.
Science Hobbyist wrote:
>
>
> If the "energy sucking" controversy is any guide, then
> one or two people will read this and understand the
> concepts, while a huge number of others will become
> enraged and launch personal attacks. This message is aimed
> at those one or two people who actually ENJOY thinking.
> The ones who use rage and ridicule to "defeat" ideas can
> go fight with each other this time, since I'm going treat
> their offensive behavior with the revulsion it deserves
> and refuse to respond to their messages.
>
> If scientists and engineers would take the following
> problem seriously, I think the world would become a
> very different place:
>
> "I know that most men, including those at ease with
> problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
> even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such
> as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions
> which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues,
> which they have proudly taught to others, and which they
> have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their
> lives." -Tolstoy
>
> (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
> William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
> bi...@eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
> Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Science Hobbyist
Mark Mallory <mar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Really Mr. Hobbyist, instead of accusing anyone who disagrees with you
> of "rage" and "personal attacks",
Read the "energy-sucking" threads and note the number of
personal attacks. Look at your own message! Yes yes,
this sort of flamer crap is normal for newsgroups, and
nobody should be suprised that it exists. Nobody can
accuse newsgroup users of being civilized people. BUT
IT NEED NOT BE LIKE THIS.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but
I have a big problem with people who apparently believe
that constant sneering hatred is an acceptable state, or
that ridicule and the belittling of others' arguments is
the best tool to use in any discussion. I find their
behavior quite revolting.
> you should make an effort to
> understand your subject better, and perhaps see where
> you have gone wrong.
This is one of the main reasons I'm here, and I've seen
and fixed a couple of my major blunders. However, is a
state of honest ignorance a CRIME on this newsgroup,
a crime which attracts hoards of self-nominated
"punishers?"
Rather than discussing a subject in order to improve
my knowledge, I must first become an expert? An
expert in whose eyes? If I was a grade-school teacher,
would you feel revulsion at my level of "ignorance," and
insist that I go away and come back when I knew more?
If I raise myself to the level of undergrad physics, would
you feel revulsion again because I'm obviously not a PhD,
and demand that I leave?
Perhaps I've totally mistaken the nature of this
newsgroup. Perhaps people want this place to be a self-
congratulation society for self-important "experts."
If so, then its my mistake for believing that I could
learn something here from those who know more, or give
insights to others who know less.
One of the reasons I find the behavior here so
disgusting is that I've occasionally been an
educator, and one thing which is totally abhorrent
to any educator is other educators who get their
jollies by ridiculing people who know less than
they do. Are you familiar with teachers who go into
the profession in order to inflate their egos by
ridiculing the ignorance of their students? Sadly,
such people are not rare.
The flamers here are not so bad, because the
situation could be far, far worse: THEY COULD
HAVE JOBS AS EDUCATORS!
> You appear to have a blind spot to any errors in your
> preconceived notions.
And newsgroup debates are an excellent way to fix this
problem, if one can learn to ignore the personal
attacks. I'm not too good at ignoring flamers. For
example, your present message certainly qualifies as
a personal attack, and here I am responding to it! :)
> Remember, a good scientist TRIES to prove himself wrong...
I wholeheartedly agree. But even more important, a good
scientist enlists the aid of others in attempting to find
errors, and also admits to errors when he finds them. By
being on this newsgroup, I'm doing both. I note that
many of my opponents have done neither.
--
(((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
Robert
Science Hobbyist wrote:
> This is one of the main reasons I'm here, and I've seen
> and fixed a couple of my major blunders. However, is a
> state of honest ignorance a CRIME on this newsgroup,
> a crime which attracts hoards of self-nominated
> "punishers?"
This should be punctuated as- "punishers"? -and not -"punishers?".
John Woodgate
inimitably wrote:
>Perhaps I've totally mistaken the nature of this
> newsgroup.
No, you haven't.
> Perhaps people want this place to be a self-
> congratulation society for self-important "experts."
They do. They are the ones who are mistaken.
> If so, then its my mistake for believing that I could
> learn something here from those who know more, or give
> insights to others who know less.
You are not mistaken, except in continuing to engage with the egotists.
I think we should simply ignore them. When they get no responses to
their mouthings, they will go away.
Bilge
>You are not mistaken, except in continuing to engage with the egotists.
In other words, someone politically incorrect enough to differentiate
between a correct physical solution rather than adopting a consensus
that allows everyone to keep their favorite anomaluy intact as a
special case requiring the same unique insight to solve as it did
to discover.
>I think we should simply ignore them. When they get no responses to
>their mouthings, they will go away.
It never hurts to perform the experiment.
Steven B. Harris
<jfi...@austininstruments.com> writes:
>Robert wrote:
>>
>> Okay, that was handled in short order. Now how do you measure the
weight of
>> your car with an egg timer?
>
>
>Let the air out the tires and measure how long it takes for the tires
to
>go flat.
>
>---
>
>John Fields, Austin Instruments, Inc.
>El Presidente Austin, Republic of Texas
>"I speak for the company" http://www.austininstruments.com
But care on giant bungee cord and time fundamental harmonic
oscilllation period, and also small arc- pendulum oscillation period.
Rich Grise
the word "anomaluy."
Good Luck!
Rich
(In the interim, I think I'll stick with what's already been
shown by experiments to be accurate, at least for the last
100 years or so.)
Rich Grise
...
> But care on giant bungee cord and time fundamental harmonic
> oscilllation period, and also small arc- pendulum oscillation period.
But why should I care about giant bungee cords?
And they taught me that the period of a pendulum is not affected by
the mass of the bob. I think we did that experiment in physics class.
But that's a long time ago - maybe the principles of physics have been
changed since then.
Cheers!
Rich
Markus Imhof
>
> Steven B. Harris wrote:
> ...
> > But care on giant bungee cord and time fundamental harmonic
> > oscilllation period, and also small arc- pendulum oscillation period.
>
> But why should I care about giant bungee cords?
>
> And they taught me that the period of a pendulum is not affected by
> the mass of the bob.
For a 'mathematical pendulum', i.e. point-mass on a massless cord and
with small enough oscillations (another effect), i.e. as long as $sin(x)
/approx x$, yes.
As soon as you go to real-world (i.e. 'physical') pendulumses, the mass
distribution of the whole moving contraption, flex in the contraption
and oscillation size become relevant.
> I think we did that experiment in physics class.
> But that's a long time ago - maybe the principles of physics have been
> changed since then.
Nope. Neither the principles of physics nor the principles of teaching
have changed since then. Or to put it in another way, what was taught to
you in physics class was a lie to simplify matters. Read e.g. Terry
Pratchett et.al, The Science of Discworld, regarding teaching and
(permissible) lies :-)
Bye
Markus
John Woodgate
Because they are sensitive by nature, and may become untrustworthy if
they feel neglected.
Bilge
Re: Send EM radiation through a tiny hole? to usenet:
>the word "anomaluy."
I fail to see what incentive I have to do anything based upon
your promise to perform an experiment to ignore me and
discover the outcome. I don't need the outcome of an experiment
to find out what I did.
Rich Grise
TWO crackpots on my ass!
Personally, I'm gonna stick with what works, and can be demonstrated.
Good Luck!
Rich
Markus Imhof wrote:
>
> Rich Grise wrote:
> >
> > Steven B. Harris wrote:
> > ...
> > > But care on giant bungee cord and time fundamental harmonic
> > > oscilllation period, and also small arc- pendulum oscillation period.
> >
> > But why should I care about giant bungee cords?
> >