Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:19:14 -0000, "christofire"
wrote: "Richard Clark" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:06:28 -0000, "christofire" wrote: With a pair of screened loops and a whip it is possible to receive separately the magnetic and electric fields associated with a radio signal and to record their strengths at different locations. This can reveal significant differences on account of building and electrical clutter, but only if the loop is adequately screened. No myth! What you describe is a direction finding system with a general antenna that can be switched in to sniff for a transmitter to take a bearing on. A commonplace design for this application. No, the loops were commutated in order to provide an omni-direction pattern in the horizontal plane and the receiver was switched between the loops and whip to measure H and E. This was used to establish for medium and long-wave broadcasting stations (in the UK) the field strength and receivability on ferrite-rod antennas. The description you offer in rebuttal says nothing of field separation. The commutation discussion imparts nothing to the physical relationship of the wave. The remainder of the description doesn't actually describe any physical/geometric relationship to the wave at all. Physics in the UK are not different from the rest of the world. The loops are no more screened than any other, and careful observation of their construction details would reveal the necessary break in the screen which serves for balance only. The loop has to be split at some point to prevent it acting as a shorted turn - the splits were at the top in this case. This, too, is merely conventional design then. You haven't described anything out of the ordinary, and the ordinary (spanning centuries) has not shown the attributes you describe as field separation. You're entitled to your opinion. As are you, but this isn't rec.radio.amateur.antenna.polls and you haven't gone beyond unsubstantiated claims. If the necessity of proof for your claims were set aside, Nature still demands that noise and signal still arrive by the same mechanism and any invention that separates fields must apply them equally to both sources - returning us to the conventional observation that S/N hasn't changed one bit. The net result of this is that you have provided unsubstantiated claims for an useless invention. Any value it may have comes by conventional means. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Improve the Rec.Radio.Shortwave Newsgroup -by- Making On-Topic ... | Shortwave | |||
improve fm reception on transistor radio | Antenna | |||
5 Ways to Improve HD Radio Reception | Shortwave | |||
What are ferrite core chokes to improve radio reception? | Shortwave | |||
Realistic \ Radio Shack DX-200 improve audio mods | Shortwave |