Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By dalemiller

Thread: Ionosphere

  1. #1 Ionosphere 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    I've heard that the ionosphere is responsible for much of the 'reflection' back down to earth that takes place when certain kinds of radio waves are sent up. What is the exact process that makes this reflection possible? and why must the atmosphere be ionized for this process to take place?


    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    "When a radio wave reaches the ionosphere, the electric field in the wave forces the electrons in the ionosphere into oscillation at the same frequency as the radio wave. Some of the radio-frequency energy is given up to this resonant oscillation. The oscillating electrons will then either be lost to recombination or will re-radiate the original wave energy."

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere

    Has your google button broken down?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    c'mon mate, be a little nicer with people. you can't expect every one to know everything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    c'mon mate, be a little nicer with people. you can't expect every one to know everything.
    I expect anyone who can use a computer and access the internet enough times to make several hundred posts on the Science Forum to be able to use google.

    You want me to be a little nicer to people? I spent my time finding the answer to his question to his benefit when he could have perfectly well done it himself. So not only did I give him the answer, but I told him how he could have got it for himself.

    There is a price to be paid for being lazy or thoughtless. He just paid it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    c'mon mate, be a little nicer with people. you can't expect every one to know everything.
    I expect anyone who can use a computer and access the internet enough times to make several hundred posts on the Science Forum to be able to use google.

    You want me to be a little nicer to people? I spent my time finding the answer to his question to his benefit when he could have perfectly well done it himself. So not only did I give him the answer, but I told him how he could have got it for himself.

    There is a price to be paid for being lazy or thoughtless. He just paid it.
    Maybe if he would like to use google more often to answer his questions, then there would be no point for a science forum in his case. I sometimes post questions in the maths section, and i get simple google links, and frankly i am alittle confused. I joined this forum, not because i cant google or wiki it, rather i want to hear the views and opinions and information from the experienced people out there can give. Yea any idiot on earth who has an access to the network knows how to google things, but come on Ophi. I dont think he was being lazy.

    What i am trying to say is, yes i get your point, but this is a forum where people discuss things, ask if they dont know something. But if members randomly just suggest "go to google, or cant you wiki?" this place is not fit to be called a forum.
    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    It does not specify the exact mechanism that leads to the total internal reflection. I was not aware that ionization of matter could effect its refractive properties in of itself. I want to understand how this process works, but wiki is lacking. They only name a few properties of the process, but do not specifically describe the process itself.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    What i am trying to say is, yes i get your point, but this is a forum where people discuss things, ask if they dont know something. But if members randomly just suggest "go to google, or cant you wiki?" this place is not fit to be called a forum.
    My point would be that had Cold Fusion taken the trouble to do that basic search, in Wikipedia or a similar source, then come and said "I get this part, but not this part", much as he has now done, then that would have shown due diligence on his part and would have advanced ths disucssion subtatially.

    In short I am very much in favour of of people asking questions, but these questions should be appropriate for their experience and background, not set at a lower level. If you were to waste time looking at some posts I have made in the past, you would see that when I discern the questioner is a genuine neophyte I will provided the answer without comment. I reserve the implicit sneer for someone like Cold Fusion who really should know better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    What i am trying to say is, yes i get your point, but this is a forum where people discuss things, ask if they dont know something. But if members randomly just suggest "go to google, or cant you wiki?" this place is not fit to be called a forum.
    My point would be that had Cold Fusion taken the trouble to do that basic search, in Wikipedia or a similar source, then come and said "I get this part, but not this part", much as he has now done, then that would have shown due diligence on his part and would have advanced ths disucssion subtatially.

    In short I am very much in favour of of people asking questions, but these questions should be appropriate for their experience and background, not set at a lower level. If you were to waste time looking at some posts I have made in the past, you would see that when I discern the questioner is a genuine neophyte I will provided the answer without comment. I reserve the implicit sneer for someone like Cold Fusion who really should know better.
    Ok Ophi. i get it, you made your point clearly enough. But i think he just wanted a casual starter with a question perhaps, then a further question, you know as a social convention, which will lead to a discussion. I infact in some posts in maths section had a purpose of starting a good discussion, so i started off with a question just like what cold fusion has done here. Maybe i was expecting some answers, then perhaps ask questions which are now set for discussing. But annoyingly enough, i just got a wiki link and disturbed my mood to go on further.

    Sorry Cold Fusion, we are turning this thread in to a topic wayyy off conversation to your question.
    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    "When a radio wave reaches the ionosphere, the electric field in the wave forces the electrons in the ionosphere into oscillation at the same frequency as the radio wave. Some of the radio-frequency energy is given up to this resonant oscillation. The oscillating electrons will then either be lost to recombination or will re-radiate the original wave energy."

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere

    Has your google button broken down?
    Wikipedia does not seek to be correct, but only to reflect consensus. Cold Fusion placed a worthy question that could be an inspired wake up call to a crock of baloney that passes for science in that area. Why would a thick population of ions return a crisp radio signal? Reflections from a random bag of ions would do a mushy job. Something is wrong if we take Wikipedia's answer for today at face value. Check it out with Jimmy Wales.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Wikipedia does seem to always give the short popular answer.
    I always seem to end up following links and references round in circles.
    With increasing numbers of papers linking back to Wikipedia.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller
    Wikipedia does not seek to be correct, but only to reflect consensus. Cold Fusion placed a worthy question that could be an inspired wake up call to a crock of baloney that passes for science in that area.
    The consensus is often correct in general and quite often in detail. Wikipedia is a convenient starting point for any deeper study. Please specifically state what is baloney about the explanation given in the Wikipedia article.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    Maybe I'm missing something...
    Exactly how was ophiolite 'not nice' to Cold Fusion ??
    I don't see any disrespect in his post, he answered his question and also included a link. Why are some of you upset ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    the ionosphere is a conductor and electric fields cant penetrate a conductor so light is reflected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    Maybe I'm missing something...
    Exactly how was ophiolite 'not nice' to Cold Fusion ??
    I don't see any disrespect in his post, he answered his question and also included a link. Why are some of you upset ??
    To be fair to Heinsbergrelatz, he correctly identified one aspect of my original post. In asking Cold fusion if his google button was broken I was, in essence, telling him to get off his frigging ass and find out the basic answers to simple questions himself.

    However, since my intent with this apparent disprespect was ultimately to aid Cold Fusion, by encouraging him to act more for himself, I think it represented genuine interest in Cold Fusion's development. I have more interest in Cold Fusion learning to get off his ass than I have in Cold Fusion, or any other member liking me. I cannot - and do not wish - to remove the educator in my psyche when I come onto the forum.

    There will be members who say, or at least think, "but that's not the way to achieve a result. You can do the same thing without being rude." The ultimate test, of course, is does Cold Fusion learn anything from the experience. And in the meantime - well, as I said, this is not a popularity contest.

    Dalemiller is annoyed because it gives him an opportunity to push his own agenda. It's faux annoyance: a tromp l'oeil of indignity. He doesn't actually give a toss about how Cold Fusion is treated.

    I don't know about granpa. I only notice his contributions when he is talkng crap. I've noticed him a lot lately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite View Post
    [
    The consensus is often correct in general and quite often in detail. Wikipedia is a convenient starting point for any deeper study. Please specifically state what is baloney about the explanation given in the Wikipedia article.[/QUOTE]

    Sorry I'm late, and I mean no disrespect to any encyclopedia. The extensive article to which you linked us heaps enough onto our plate to make us take flight. Yet, buried with all of that super-detail one might conclude that the presence of ions in the atmosphere is all about sunshine and special strata. The entire atmosphere bears most of the extra electrons that constitute Earth's great negative charge. No energetic intrusion is needed for that. The excess electrons reside here just to hang out where they wish to go. A film-formed bubble of electrons is repelled above the charged molecules and can reflect radio waves in the same fashion as a metal screen: Current induced in a conductor results in magnetic responses that re-radiates just as the initial radiator functioned in the first place.

    I am saying that much balogna lies in what is not said in the moldy old handbooks and the encyclopedias that quite properly protect their credibility by conforming to such noncontroversial traditions. Use such a source by all means, but take it all with a grain of salt. But far me it from be to reproach those who would drag out an old dogma for a fresh kicking around.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite View Post


    Dalemiller is annoyed because it gives him an opportunity to push his own agenda. It's faux annoyance: a tromp l'oeil of indignity. He doesn't actually give a toss about how Cold Fusion is treated.
    touche
    You treated Cold Fusion fine and dandy, but my two cents worth had not yet touched upon my agenda. Nor do I disagree with Jimmy Wales: an encyclopedia is no place for controversy. I probably have an overdeveloped annoyance with the sanctity that consensus receives in science.

    Maybe it is wrong for me to horn in when I think someone's thread is right down my alley or at least on the turf that interests me.
    Last edited by dalemiller; August 23rd, 2011 at 05:49 PM. Reason: stupidity
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Exerpt from the Wiki Article
    Mechanism of refraction

    When a radio wave reaches the ionosphere, the electric field in the wave forces the electrons in the ionosphere into oscillation at the same frequency as the radio wave. Some of the radio-frequency energy is given up to this resonant oscillation. The oscillating electrons will then either be lost to recombination or will re-radiate the original wave energy. Total refraction can occur when the collision frequency of the ionosphere is less than the radio frequency, and if the electron density in the ionosphere is great enough.
    The critical frequency is the limiting frequency at or below which a radio wave is reflected by an ionospheric layer at vertical incidence. If the transmitted frequency is higher than the plasma frequency of the ionosphere, then the electrons cannot respond fast enough, and they are not able to re-radiate the signal. It is calculated as shown below:
    Basically, if a photon causes an electron to be set in motion, the photon disappears as a result. If an electron is put into motion, usually that causes it to immediately radiate a photon and slow back down again. Accelerating a charged object is how you cause the emission of photons in the first place.

    Because of the "all or nothing" nature of photons, you don't have to worry about some awkward combinations occurring.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Consensus is never correct, never has been and never will. Simple reason : Simple reason is that consensus is not part of any argument nor does it take part in argumenting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    There's several things wrong with that argument. First, consensus has been shown in several studies to be more correct than individual responses in a variety of situations. Second, this is a science forum where people come to learn about accepted scientific ideas, not personal theories. (There is a subsection for personal theories if you want to start a new post there.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    There's several things wrong with that argument. First, consensus has been shown in several studies to be more correct than individual responses in a variety of situations. Second, this is a science forum where people come to learn about accepted scientific ideas, not personal theories. (There is a subsection for personal theories if you want to start a new post there.)
    Several means more than two but not many. Your first offering of what is wrong is a magnificent example of what is wrong with leading people to believe that the customary belief is the acceptable one and that holders of alternative notions are out of order and should be carried away from the premises. We are to presume that committees of actual scientists (my favorite expression) have dutifully made studies to determine how popular conclusions are superior in correctness to thoughts from mere individuals. Could you give us your source to some of their reports?

    How can we draw the line on when to stop thinking because any original thought may tend to send us astray? Where is the harm? Intelligent people apply bologna detectors well enough to stay clear of misinformation that perpetually assaults us. Gibberish givers give themselves away with expressions like "in a variety of situations".
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Let's not get into semantic quibbles.

    For the first point, start here: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460572 and then check the references and cited by sections.

    You didn't address the second point at all. The goal of this forum is basically to help people learn about accepted scientific understanding. There are people that read this stuff and never post. There are also people that will believe anything written down if someone doesn't correct it.

    Now, for actual research, you need to follow the scientific method. Ideas are good, but the are only the first of about 8 steps, and if you stop there and claim your idea is true, you will rightly get labeled as a pseudoscientist.

    Note that nowhere did I say that individual thinking is bad. Claiming your individual though is somehow more right than those ideas that have undergone rigorous scientific analysis, then yes, that's bad, and the harm is that someone might believe you.

    If you want me to go in to more detail on what the scientific method is, and what it means, I'd be happy to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion View Post
    I've heard that the ionosphere is responsible for much of the 'reflection' back down to earth that takes place when certain kinds of radio waves are sent up. What is the exact process that makes this reflection possible? and why must the atmosphere be ionized for this process to take place?
    Am glad you asked that question. AFAIK, there is a shell structure of electrons far aloft that acts as though it is a conductor itself. As such, any rf (radio frequency) energy induces a current that in turn produces radiation outward and inwardly (up and down). The higher that electron shell is located, the farther away reflected radio waves will reach upon the surface. The negative charge of the sun distorts our electron shell by pushing down on the daytime side and pushing up on the nighttime side. However, an rf signal plowing through a deep portion of atmosphere populated with plasma existing due to solar radiation is attenuated by consequential randomized interaction with ionic activity. Shading of the atmosphere reduces the ionic population to a steadier and reduced level. Hence nighttime radio transmissions take an easier path up to a higher portion of the electron shell to enhance rf communications.

    It is hoped that this explanation, unburdened by sanctioned dogmas fostered by actual scientists, suggests a more direct answer to your question. NASA rocket scientists might confuse the issue by declaring that shell to be positive, but I suppose that they might get mixed up between IR drop due to Fair Weather Current (FWC), and recognition of what polarity of charged particles are present in the shell.

    It would be nice to call that electron shell the electro-sphere or ionosphere, but that leaves us vulnerable to alternate definitions.

    ( I hope that I am not going too off-topic by ignoring the clamor over who deserves to speak on a science forum.)
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post
    ( I hope that I am not going too off-topic by ignoring the clamor over who deserves to speak on a science forum.)
    Without going in to too much detail, I'd have to label this as flame-bait. I'm trying to be nice here and offer an explanation of why others react the way they do to a lot of people that quickly get labeled cranks or pseudoscientists, as well as promoting the scientific method in general. Nowhere did I say anything about "who deserves to speak" here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    <br>
    Without going in to too much detail, I'd have to label this as flame-bait. I'm trying to be nice here and offer an explanation of why others react the way they do to a lot of people that quickly get labeled cranks or pseudoscientists, as well as promoting the scientific method in general. Nowhere did I say anything about "who deserves to speak" here.
    <br>
    <br>
    I am grateful for you're attempts to be nice. Perhaps I miss-spoke with the word "speak". Rather, the issue was the opportunity for me to be heeded. I had spoken only in defense of the need to address valid scientific beliefs that lay outside of broadly accepted theory. Your responses seemed to present on your mind that I was terribly mistaken and that was due to my lack of understanding of the scientific method. As you have done before, you bring up nomenclature tentatively applied to me as a pseudo-scientist, previously a crackpot. All of your suggestions fit your self description as one who plays the odds. You play the odds in judging people when it is not your place to so publicly. Don't find me a fool because you have a listed criteria that fits me so with ten to one odds. Playing such odds means that you perform an injustice upon one out of every ten people upon whom you presume to publicly pass judgement.

    Even if I were sure that such behavior might be what you call flame-bait I decline to throw such a slur. My common sense tells me that I perceive a counter-intuitive electrical effect that clarifies a number of phenoma that admittedly confuse some actual scientists. I would like to have you decline to interfere with my efforts to share such information with the few people that might be patient enough and intelligent enough to consider what validity might lie in my postings. I do not mean that anyone disagreeing with me is stupid. I would swear that one troublesome person must have an IQ at least 50 points above mine, even though I think to have stumbled upon something that he does not understand. That is just his problem, not mine if a kinder soul will hear me out. Please realize that none of your council has been of use to me and that most of it suggests to other people that I waste their time. I suspect that you fall short of knowing how to treat people fairly. Please do not hound me.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I didn't call you a pseudo-scientist or a crank. Can you at least avoid putting words in my mouth during your rants? (So much for being nice.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    I didn't call you a pseudo-scientist or a crank. Can you at least avoid putting words in my mouth during your rants? (So much for being nice.)
    You will have the last word because this will be my last response to you. Please do not stop being so very nice. But you just said that I said that you said I was a crank. But I think I never ever said that you said I was a crank. Again, I ask you for supporting evidence of what you claim. If I were ever to say someone is putting words in my mouth I would say it of you. Goodbye, it has been 100 percent.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Fine, you said crackpot, not crank. It's not like the difference matters, if it even exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    ....I can either move this to site feedback, general, or leave it here with the hope that the topic returns to something about radio signal reflection off the ionosphere. Radio wave propagation is actually a pretty interesting subject.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Long ago, upon hearing all that extensive detail about various layers and when they activated and how they rose or fell, I used short wave radio with just vague satisfaction that nighttime was better, but my job was still just to send flight status reports when I was told to, so it did not make much difference to me. Now, it seems clearer that daytime ionization simply gives us a chance to use the ground wave for broadcast AM, relatively free of the nuisance caused by ionospheric reflection. Sunshine busts up the propagation paths between Earth and the ever-present spheroidal shell of electrons that sometimes acts like a smooth rf reflector. That helps the AM broadcast band whereby direct propagation along the ground isn't mixed in at the receiver with bounced rf. For long range communications, night-time communications on short wave bands becomes enhanced because the sunshine-driven ionization has gone away. Ionization is just a pain! The outer shell of electrons provide an unencumbered reflector that rises even higher at night because the negatively charged sun repels it upwards instead of pushing it down as in the daytime.

    Apparently, the smoothly distributed low level of negative ions throughout Earth's atmosphere enjoy sufficient spacing in fair weather so as to leave atmospheric resistance too high to be a bother. It never helped me when being taught as a radioman to hear all about D and E layers (Hams never mentioned any A, B or C layers and I never asked them for any at all.).
    Last edited by dalemiller; October 18th, 2011 at 05:12 AM. Reason: response to complaint
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite;274821Dalemiller is annoyed because it gives him an opportunity to push his own agenda. It's [I
    faux [/I]annoyance: a tromp l'oeil of indignity. He doesn't actually give a toss about how Cold Fusion is treated.

    I don't know about granpa. I only notice his contributions when he is talking crap. I've noticed him a lot lately.
    We (the Scots) need you in New Zealand, Ophiolite, for the remainder of the Rugby World Cup!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite View Post
    "When a radio wave reaches the ionosphere, the electric field in the wave forces the electrons in the ionosphere into oscillation at the same frequency as the radio wave. Some of the radio-frequency energy is given up to this resonant oscillation. The oscillating electrons will then either be lost to recombination or will re-radiate the original wave energy."

    Source: Ionosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Resonance does not mean the same thing as that of induced rf current re-radiating a signal. The term "oscillation" in this application is probably what got the writer so carried away. The good news is that Wikipedia might have a totally different explanation tomorrow or the next day. I cannot expect them to realize that the reflecting surface is an electron shell that is lofted above a negatively charged atmosphere. Normally, when we get the familiar phenomenon of rf reflection, we just call it rf reflection. Just because it happens at the electron shell above us shouldn't force us to drag out the screwed-up explanation. Even if the electrons were oscillating, and were destined to recombine, such recombination is hardly a mutual-exclusive alternative to re-radiation of original wave energy. That sort of tech writing would be far more applicable to descriptions of interior decorating or cosmetology. No offence.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite;274821Dalemiller is annoyed because it gives him an opportunity to push his own agenda. It's [I
    faux [/I]annoyance: a tromp l'oeil of indignity. He doesn't actually give a toss about how Cold Fusion is treated.

    I don't know about granpa. I only notice his contributions when he is talking crap. I've noticed him a lot lately.
    We (the Scots) need you in New Zealand, Ophiolite, for the remainder of the Rugby World Cup!
    I am there in spirit. This will ensure that I not only witness, but embrace on a spiritual level the magnificent desolation that will likely follow one small scrum for a man, one giant leap for the English forwards. Surely no one is more skilled at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than the Scots.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Resonance does not mean the same thing as that of induced rf current re-radiating a signal.
    The wikipedia article does not say that they are the same. Perhaps you will clarify - and I do mean clarify, not just indulge in arm waving - what you find incorrect about the simple sequence described in the article. At no point is it stated that resonance is the same thing as re-radiation of a signal.

    The good news is that Wikipedia might have a totally different explanation tomorrow or the next day.
    Most informed people view Wikipedia as an excellent starting point for exploring a topic. The informed reader will recognise that quality can be variable and articles can be briefly corrupted by vandals, but the general quality for most of the entires is very good. A snide comment of the type you have made here reflects far more badly on you than it does on Wikipedia. You may wish to explore the possibility that the other reason your ideas have been ignored is the arrogant way you have gone about presenting them.


    I cannot expect them to realize that the reflecting surface is an electron shell that is lofted above a negatively charged atmosphere.
    This has the appearance of word salad. Define, in this context electron shell. Define, in this context, lofted above. Since a negatively charged atmosphere, presumably, has an excess of electrons, how does this differ from the electron shell that islofted above it? What mechanism performs the lofting?

    Normally, when we get the familiar phenomenon of rf reflection, we just call it rf reflection. Just because it happens at the electron shell above us shouldn't force us to drag out the screwed-up explanation.
    You have not demonstrated that the explanation is screwed up. Simply stating that is screwed up will not make it so. If you are satsified that simply calling rf reflection, rf reflection says all there is to say on the matter, then you don't seem to have a very penetrating sense of enquiry. The wikipedia article offers something more. If you think it is wrong identify specifically what is wrong with it.

    That sort of tech writing would be far more applicable to descriptions of interior decorating or cosmetology. No offence.
    That sort of tech writing is infinitely more intelligible, interesting and probably accurate than the flowery, vacuous mind farts that characterise your own posts. Offence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite View Post
    Resonance does not mean the same thing as that of induced rf current re-radiating a signal.
    "The wikipedia article does not say that they are the same. Perhaps you will clarify - and I do mean clarify, not just indulge in arm waving - what you find incorrect about the simple sequence described in the article. At no point is it stated that resonance is the same thing as re-radiation of a signal."
    [/QUOTE]
    Rf reflection from a conductor is the same thing as the re-radiation of rf from the conductor. The electron shell reflects a broad frequency band as opposed to the narrow frequency band offered by a resonating device. Things that go into oscillation would be amplifiers with positive feedback, not the passive devices lying around in the ionosphere. [/QUOTE]

    "The oscillating electrons will then either be lost to recombination or will re-radiate the original wave energy."[/QUOTE]

    No recombination claims any oscillating electrons at the electron shell. Re-combinations of plasma on the sunny side of earth are hardly involved. Can anyone make sense out of the rest of the sentence?
    Last edited by dalemiller; October 17th, 2011 at 12:46 PM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    [QUOTE=Ophiolite;285614]

    The good news is that Wikipedia might have a totally different explanation tomorrow or the next day.
    "Most informed people view Wikipedia as an excellent starting point for exploring a topic. The informed reader will recognise that quality can be variable and articles can be briefly corrupted by vandals, but the general quality for most of the entires is very good. A snide comment of the type you have made here reflects far more badly on you than it does on Wikipedia. You may wish to explore the possibility that the other reason your ideas have been ignored is the arrogant way you have gone about presenting them."

    Miller: If I came here to follow the crowd I would copy what they do. As you have pointed out, I have an agenda. Is it wrong of me to attempt to share discoveries encountered on roads less traveled? Why do you so readily advertise your cruel opinions that vigorously denigrate me? My snide remark took issue, not with Wikipedia but with the obligatory pursuit of enforced mediocrity. Would you please specify just how I failed to conceal my arrogance? I have not confessed here that I know how sm black holes are produced, nor that I understand how atmospheric lightning is formed. Is it my self-defense that takes us off-topic or is it someone else's aggression?
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    [QUOTE=Ophiolite;285614]
    This has the appearance of word salad. Define, in this context electron shell. Define, in this context, lofted above. Since a negatively charged atmosphere, presumably, has an excess of electrons, how does this differ from the electron shell that islofted above it? What mechanism performs the lofting?[QUOTE]

    Miller: First, let me explain why I discriminate between the negatively charged atmosphere and the electron shell: The clean crisp echos that we can receive from the electron shell surely results from reflection from a significant surface area encountered at a discrete range. There might be a little Doppler involved, but very little scattering. The electrons in the shell are so much lighter than the distributed negative ions that they achieve greater height before earth gravity matches the relatively local source of negative atmosphere below. The ions of either polarity (plasma) stimulated by Solar activity should be limited to the sunny side of Earth where they protect broadcast band propagation from sky-wave reception that imposes alternate reinforcement and cancellation of reception that we endure at night.

    We cannot fancy that the sparse negative atmospheric charge presents significant reflection for rf. The ever-present charge on the atmosphere would scatter radio transmissions unbearably. We know then that atmospheric charge is thin enough not to prevent such communications. A single electron won't bounce any rf that we work with. I have never figured out how far apart our ions are because I am too old. But electrons seldom get very close to each other except in raindrops and lightning bolts. The only other ions, plasma or whatever that I can think of that might reflect rf would be sunny side plasma and external intrusions such as meteors and cosmic rays. Out of those, only meteors have been useful.
    Last edited by dalemiller; September 29th, 2011 at 10:11 PM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Dale, please learn how to use quote fields correctly, then go back in and edit your last few posts so it is clear to other members who is saying what. You need to end the quote with this [/QUOTE]

    As to your responses:

    Wikipedia said this "The oscillating electrons will then either be lost to recombination or will re-radiate the original wave energy."

    Your response was :
    No recombination claims any oscillating electrons at the electron shell. Re-combinations of plasma on the sunny side of earth are hardly involved. Can anyone make sense out of the rest of the sentence?
    Your first sentence makes no sense to me at all.
    Your second sentence appears irrelevant. No one has stated that 'recombinations of plasma on the sunny side of the Earth are involved'. As a side point would you please capitalise the word Earth when you are referring to the planet. This will prevent confusion with an electrical 'earth', a confusion that could easily arise given the subject matter.
    The Wikipedia sentence makes perfect sense to me.

    If I came here to follow the crowd I would copy what they do. As you have pointed out, I have an agenda. Is it wrong of me to attempt to share discoveries encountered on roads less traveled?
    It is perfectlyreasonable for you to do so. However, you seem totally unaware of the way in which science is conducted. Here are some pointers.

    This is a science forum. It is for discussing science, not doing science. There is some provision for the latter in that speculations can be put forward for consideration by other members. In such instances the speculations will rightly be subject to intense scrutiny by others and the proposer will be interrogated and critiqued incisively and harshly. Why? Because that is the way science works. If the ideas can not stand up to such intense scrutiny then they are not worth a damn. Frankly, if you do not welcome such scrutiny then your motives and value as a scientific thinker are highly questionable.

    Why do you so readily advertise your cruel opinions that vigorously denigrate me?
    You have placed your ideas on a public forum. Your manner of presenting those ideas is third rate. Now I can remain silent and join the masses who are ignoring you completely, or the group who are quitely laughing at your ineptitude or I can advise you, as I have done, that your presentation style sucks. Now you may not like what you are hearing from me, but if you paid any attention to it then you could make an effort to improve how you presented your ideas, so that there would be some chance people might listen.

    So why do I even take the time to criticise? I am offended by poor communication. I am offended by wishy washy ideas, or ideas communicated in a wishy washy fasion. It is unacceptable. It is especially unacceptable in the context of science. I am compelled to comment when I see it taking place. I don't believe I am attacking you at all. I am attacking your style. Now if you feel that your style is just fine, then clearly my opinion is worthless and you need not be influenced by it. Certainly the opinion of someone who is wrong can hardly denigrate you. If, however, you suspect that much of what I say is right then you know that the answer lies not in me stopping my criticism, but in you changing your style. It's your choice. You have the power.


    My snide remark took issue, not with Wikipedia but with the obligatory pursuit of enforced mediocrity. Would you please specify just how I failed to conceal my arrogance?
    Amazing! You conced it was a snide remark, then ask me in what way you were arrogant. You talk of having made discoveries on 'paths less travelled'. You are posing as an original thinker who has seen what hundreds, probably thousands of others have failed to see. Excuse me if I don't fall to the ground and worship at your feet. The internet is full of persons like yourself who claim some great insight, yet lack the literacy and the numeracy to express it.

    Is it my self-defense that takes us off-topic or is it someone else's aggression?
    You are damn right that I am being aggressive, for I do not suffer foolish behaviour quietly. Try a little humility in your presentations and you might get a serious audience and a measured response. Continue with the unrecognsied genius ploy and you'll continue to be ignored, laughed at, or berated. Again, it's your choice.

    As per your last post I am still waiting for you to define electron shell, in context. I apologise for not having made it clear that I was looking for that. I thought my sentence "Define, in this context electron shell." would have been sufficient, but I now understand it somehow lacked clarity. So would you please tell me what you mean by the phrase "electron shell" in the context of this discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite View Post

    As per your last post I am still waiting for you to define electron shell, in context. I apologise for not having made it clear that I was looking for that. I thought my sentence "Define, in this context electron shell." would have been sufficient, but I now understand it somehow lacked clarity. So would you please tell me what you mean by the phrase "electron shell" in the context of this discussion.
    At the top of the ionosphere exists a spheroidal shell of electrons boosted there by an electrically charged atmosphere. The only useful reflections of radio signals back down to Earth must come from this discrete reflecting structure. Any ionization below that electron shell, caused by randomized occurrances from a great depth of reflection points would only break reflected radio signals up into high frequency components that would hash out as energy far outside the bandwidths to which to which receivers are tuned. The topic of this string questions the need for ionization in order to get reflections. Long ago, before anyone realized the existence of an ever present reflecting surface, much prattle fell into scientific consensus but none of that prattle ever came to any point! The electric charge upon the atmosphere is due to an overabundance of electrons. No positive ions lurk to neutralize them. Solar energy, most abundant on the sunny side, helps the broadcast band by restricting reception to ground wave propagation. Sunny side ionization dispels competing signal from distant stations by chopping it up into high frequency noise. On the other hand, short wave DX (long range communication) is enhanced at night when signals travel unmolested by ionization and/or plasma in its bounce paths to far away receivers. Night time furthers such advantage by the sun's repulsion of the electron shell to greater heights.

    Again, I said only that Wikipedia might well be taken with a grain of salt It is a wonderful resource.

    Thank you for what patience you have shown. I am sorry for the distraction imposed by my limitations.

    I am grateful to you for clarifying that I can expect no advanced scientists to forgive me for emphasizing their shortcomings that are so conspicuous from the standpoint of my extensive experience.

    If you wish, and can tolerate my poor best shot at explaining why I am so sure that there is a spheroidal shell of electrons surrounding Earth, then say the word and I will explain, but would rather stick to the technical issues than hear about my faults: my wife of 55 years takes good care of all of that and is quite thorough, but doesn't make a public scene.
    Last edited by dalemiller; October 18th, 2011 at 10:04 PM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    The ionosphere is topped off by a spheroidal shell or bubble formed out of electrons, A negatively charged Earth and atmosphere demonstrate themselves through the Fair Weather Current that delivers free electrons toward that electron shell. Any electron that bypasses engagement with molecules within the charged atmosphere continues upward until the predominately local sources of repulsion falls to match the gravitational and electrostatic attraction centered at Earth-center. At such elevation, that electron has joined Earths surrounding shell of electrons. Were it to rise farther than that, it would either escape Earth entirely or encounter another shell at higher strata. (Beats me, but why not?) As an electron joins the shell, preexisting electrons readjust as required toward achievement of lateral equidistance between all neighboring particles.

    When within Earth’s shadow, that first (?) electron shell is stretched higher by repulsion from the sun’s negative charge, and is usually accessible for reflection of short-wave radio waves. Electromagnetic waves cutting through the film of electrons thrusts those particles into motion that constitutes RF electric current that in turn produces re-radiation of such signal. From there, descending radiation accomplishes the phenomenon of reflection, Barring cosmic rays, man-made mischief or the like, night-time short wave communications is often worth waiting for. We might usefully recall that a good mirror calls for a fairly smooth surface.

    On the daytime side of Earth, various solar radiations can scatter some spurious occasions of ionization at various strata that reflect chopped up segments of radio signals that virtually converts signals to noise. Intensive radiation, especially over equatorial atmosphere presents sufficient ionization to effect layers of plasma. Negative electrostatic effects from the sun, by action upon all charged particles of such plasma draws positive electric current along a layered strata of atmosphere toward a point below the solar zenith that dispels occasion for high electrical resistance. Existence of such current presents susceptibility for RF radiation to tweak existing electrical current (by alternately boosting then retarding it) to accomplish generation of reflecting signal. It would seem that as protons are pulled closer and electrons are pushed away, that extended periods of this infrastructure for daytime sky wave propagation is maintained.
    Last edited by dalemiller; October 21st, 2011 at 01:06 AM. Reason: trying to improve
    Milan Karakaš likes this.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •