On May 22, 4:41*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 22, 8:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On May 22, 1:07*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 22, 6:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Also exists the field emission. But it is harmfull for antennas if it is
in
form of sparks.
The high voltage kicks the electrons in the neighbourhood.
Probably the electrons flow (and come back - but it is not symetrical))
from
a cold aluminum element. Anenna radiate if VSWR is low. It means that not
all come back.
S*
so over a period of time if the electrons keep flowing away from an

antenna it should become positively charged. *and the longer it
operates the higher the charge. *unfortunately this is not the case,

Is antena grounded?
All circuits are closed. The receiver antenna also do not become negatively
charged. The Earth closes the circuit.

antennas do not give off electrons any more than they have magical

levitating neutrinos like art prefers.

I am using only old theories proved by experiments. Art is probably trying
to do the new.
The same was with Maxwell. He did the new. May be that Art's hipothesis the
teachers adopt to teaching.
S*

Because of comments made I decided to abandon the idea of increasing
the diameter of the dipole which really is a bit off the wall and
decided instead to change frequency applied to obtain a low to near
zero impedance. This approach did not result in a truly spherical
radiation pattern and nor did it remove vortices ! The pattern when
cut always revealed a figure 8 somewhere. Never the less, peak gain
produced by the program always produced a larger volume pattern when
impedance was a minimum. This certainly implies that because of the
loss of skin the element impedance was lowered and thus the radiation
would increase. Of course it depends on the observer to interprete
observations where others may well differ.( A sure certainty in this
group)
I am beginning to see an analogy between radiation
elements and water, where water being diamagnetic would attract
particles. Looking at it in radiating terms, the current would flow
within the intersection point outside the water and propel the
individual particles from or part of the skin which really is an
encapsulation surface of a material other than water. Since mass
inside the boundary does not change because of instant replacement the
boundary mathematical approach would still hold.
Of course, if the skin was actually made of particles
the addition of soap to the radiator surface would render it immune to
radiation if bubbles were not created thus leaving a diminishing
surface area of broken skin.Hopefully I have supplied enough material
to anger those who are sure they know all about radiation and thus
provoke them to finally declare exactly what is happening in a
scientific manner ala details, details,details
Regards
Art

you really must chat with mr. b. *now that you are talking about water
waves you are both on the same 'wavelength' so to speak.


Is that a good example of what you call conversation?
Waves and wavelength !!!
Talk with Mister B?
I would do that at a drop of the hat if the outcome was that you
wouldn't engage me in conversation for a hundred years as you promised
him.
I left you a clue with respect to water and the
collecting of Neutrinos but again I over estimated
your interlect
I don't think I can go much lower, you as a person has already hit
rock bottom.
Hey a question for you. Richard lives alone, so does Kotar .Possibly
the other regular hacker also. Would I be correct that you also have
to live alone as you seem to fit the standard model of driving people
away?