On 12 sep, 15:49, Richard Clark wrote:
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...rees_Antennas_...
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
Hello dear Richard, how are you? I hope very well with yours:
Mylar conductive ballon replacement it is not a valid refutation for
the hipotesis analized, that antenna was only a "test antenna", any
liquid antenna can be replaced by a metalic antenna...! what prove
that?
I was not be here fifty year ago :) (I suppose "ether" also must have
been treated in this newsgropup a hundred years ago :D ) what you
think about it (trees) at that time?
I do not know lens dielectric antennas, I learnt radiation it due
accelerating charges, electrons are charges, free ions also, non free
dielectric charges (E field induced dipoles) too; alternating electric
field applied to them produce movement on them, then acceleration,
then = radiation. Am I wrong? (yes I know, loss too sometimes).
You say: "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 "two" conductors? you know air not work as a "conductor" in this
analitic environment, it would the same it there were empty vacuum,
reflecting medium properties are responsibles for earth reflections.
"Mismatch" it is another magic word, improper of you indeed my
friend!, not an explanation :)
Classic EM radiation (or the same "re-irradiation") it sometimes
explained due accelarating charges, and YES, I agree with you,
certainly "you do not need sea water to achieve the same thing", you
can do it with any other vibrating charge, sea water charges it is
only one possibility, conductors, soil substances are other familiar
things capable to do it.
We know waves are reflected to ionosphere by those mediums, we can
explain that reflections with incident electromagnetic fields and
earth surface induced currents; however, "current" not implies here
free electrons traveling miles inside a conductor, we have a "current"
with any little induced movement on a charge and if this movemente is
not constant we have acceleration then = EM radiation, what other
classical process could explain the EM earth reflection? I do not
know.
However I am not supporting practical liquid antennas here, I have not
made the experience and I have not theoretical enough knowledge
neither to prove or refute the hipotesis without much more working, I
only have some pointers to think over about it.
73
Miguel LU6ETJ