On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1461138

Hi Miguel,

Let's see, half the power lost to the antenna:
"A simple monopole antenna was constructed and its reflected
impedance and radiation efficiency measured for salt solutions
of 2 conductivities and 2 monopole diameters. Two antennas
were constructed, 25 mm and 50 mm in diameter, with salt solution
at 35 ppt and 70 ppt. The resonant frequency was found to
be inversely proportional to salt solution column height,
with bandwidths of ?1 GHz (-10 dB S11 points) at 1.3 GHz."

A quarterwave monopole @1.3GHz would be 5.8cM tall and up to 5cM in
diameter? A mylar balloon filled with air (not water) wouldn't lose
half the power applied. Voila! Wide band, 3dB gain, lighter, and can
be made into any shape.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1508589...ennas_IEEE.pdf

This has been a topic here going back at least 15 years.

Time ago I had some doubts about the mobility of ions in a liquid to
radiate and calculate how much an electron actually moves when the
antenna is radiating to use as a starting point.
The numbers (if I do not make mistakes) showed me to a current density
in the order of 5 A/mm^2, free electrons can take a trip of just one
three thousandth mm of copper ion radius, surprising result!, really I
did not expect such a small value ..., It showed me that electrons in
antenna barely vibrate around their resting place when radiates (I
made calculations for a irradiant at 80 m).
This favored hypothesis of liquid antenna possibilities because would
suffice for the ions (charges) of the liquid vibrate slightly around
their points of rest to act as radiators (I do not to solve issues
related + ion mass to best "close" my questions).

Consider a dielectric lens antenna. How much mobility there?

We know sea water an earth EM wave reflections really are
reirradiation of EM energy,

This reflection is a function of a severe mismatch between two poor
conductors. You don't need sea water to achieve the same thing.

What do you think about it?

Consult the authority on invention:
http://www.rubegoldberg.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC