From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Instant Communications
Keywords: waves
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:21:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3978@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
     [oodles of stuff deleted]
>
>        Electromagnetic  ``waves'' are not really waves, but positive to
>       negative variations of V amplitude which take place over  periods
>       of  time  and  at  a  given  location,  usually  from a line like
>       radiating source  element  called  an  antenna  (no  reference  ,
>       snarfy's  dictum).  These  variations simply LOOK like waves when
>       translated to voltage/time coordinates on an oscilloscope (I hope
>       this is obvious).  AC  Impedances  are  really  derivations  from
>       applied  voltage  and resulting current just as in static fields.
>       Certainly, I and R values are frequency dependent for  any  given
>       value of L (Inductance) and C (Capacitance), but you still end up
>       with I = V/z (z evaluated in ohms).

      Hate to dampen your fervor, but why don't you take a second and
      think about what a wave might look like if you sat at a point
      and watched it.  It might well look like 'positive
      and negative variations of [] amplitude which take place over
      periods of time'.   Another small point that you might have missed:
      electromagnetic *waves* satisfy a *wave* equation.  So if it 'looks'
      like a wave and acts like a wave ...

>        Now  , back to current draw.  Again, Kirschoff's law states that
>       at a junction I(in) = I(out)  .   Since  a  junction  is  usually
>       considered  to  be  a  place  where three conducting elements are
>       joined , consider a system of a transmitter 18.63  miles  distant
>       from  two  receiving  antennas  .   At  resonance , the receiving
>       antennas each ``drain'' 1/10  of  the  available  output  of  the
>       transmiter. The rest of the transmitter's energy is ``wasted'' on
>       heating  the atmosphere or distant intergalactic nebulas.  If one
>       of the antennas is suddenly oriented away from  the  transmitter,
>       the  same  mass  still  stands  between  the  transmitter and the
>       distant galactic nebula and the atmosphere  beyond  the  antenna.
>       The  entire  resonant  system is now detuned ,however, because of
>       the effective removal of one of the inductive elements  from  the
>       system.   If  the effect of this detuning took the time necessary
>       for light  to  traverse  the  18.63  miles  to  register  at  the
>       transmitter,  then  you  would have a violation of Kirchoff's law
>       which  endures  for  .1  milliseconds  (  a  virtual  eternity  ,
>       leptonically speaking).

      Another little hint, Kirchhoff's 'law' is not a universal 'law of 
      nature', especially when you redefine 'junction' as being spatially
      distributed.  As well, we usually apply it to circuits, not
      broadcast systems.

      Looking at this another way, you've just 'proved' that a capacitor
      cannot work.

>        What  more can a snarfy say? If we can break Kirchoff's Law, for
>       even .1 millisecond, what next?  Total  Anarchy  in  the  physics
>       world ? Heavens forbid!

      It is not usually broken when applied correctly, he said dryly.

      I think that the law you are looking for is Murphy's.

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.environment,sci.energy