View Single Post
  #229   Report Post  
Old July 23rd 12, 06:18 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
[email protected] jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,898
Default UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY

instead "Without of any doubts";.

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know
that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the
additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned
experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge
builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support
the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far.
Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have
progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century
physics.


The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.


The "Giants" were wrong, light is no such thing, and you are a moron.

Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less
ignorant than 19th century folk.


In XX century was done the first rectenna: "A rectenna is a rectifying
antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert microwave energy
into direct current electricity. "
In XXI century are the optical rectennas.


Irrelevant to anything to do with the nature of light.

But the first were the crystal radio:
"The simplest crystal radio receiver, employing an antenna and a
demodulating diode (rectifier), is actually a rectenna".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna


Irrelevant to anything to do with the nature of light other than to show
light and radio waves have the same properties.

You wrote "latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best
"knowledge" that we have so far".

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?


Generally, the latest ones which have more experiments and data to back
them up.

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.


To be Szczepan Bialek means to be an ignorant, ineducable, moron.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about antennas or how they work.

You don't even understand what an antenna is or the difference between
an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field.

An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
teminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna
and also coverts the electromagnetic energy which antenna intercepts
into AC electrical energy at it's terminals.

A rectenna is simply an antenna with something that acts as a diode at
it's terminals to convert the AC to DC.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on anthing
in any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?