"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:05:34 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:
To radiate what?

Your radio waves.

To radiate what?

Jeff wrote: " Depends entirely on what the insulation is composed of!!"

Glass is an insulator but it is transparent for the light frequencies.

Does exist an insulation (reasonably thick) which is not transparent for the
radio-amateur frequencies?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:05:34 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:
To radiate what?

Your radio waves.

To radiate what?

Jeff wrote: " Depends entirely on what the insulation is composed of!!"

Glass is an insulator but it is transparent for the light frequencies.

Does exist an insulation (reasonably thick) which is not transparent for the
radio-amateur frequencies?
S*

You obviously do not know that the amateur frequencies start at 1.8 MHz
and include everything above 300 GHz.

Within that range of frequencies, there are lots of materials that are
"insulators" that have large dielectric losses.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

and in particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity#Lossy_medium

You are a babbling idiot.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Does exist an insulation (reasonably thick) which is not transparent for
the
radio-amateur frequencies?
S*

You obviously do not know that the amateur frequencies start at 1.8 MHz
and include everything above 300 GHz.

Within that range of frequencies, there are lots of materials that are
"insulators" that have large dielectric losses.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

and in particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity#Lossy_medium

" For frequencies at which dipole orientations cannot follow the applied
field due to the viscosity of the medium, absorption of the field's energy
leads to energy dissipation"

You are a babbling idiot.

I am collecting evidences. Thanks for your input.

So, next question:

The "energy dissipation" means heat.

In case of the bare wire the air is heated. For isolated the insulation.
Is it possible to burn off an insulation which have large dielectric losses?
S*

So, next question:

The "energy dissipation" means heat.

In case of the bare wire the air is heated. For isolated the insulation.
Is it possible to burn off an insulation which have large dielectric losses?
S*



I suppose yes, if the loss is high enough, and the applied power is high
enough. However, a dielectric that lossy would greatly effect the
electrical length of the antenna element, and removing it would change
the characteristics and impedance of the antenna, so it may totally
change the way your antenna behaves.

Jeff

"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


Does exist an insulation (reasonably thick) which is not transparent for
the
radio-amateur frequencies?
S*

You obviously do not know that the amateur frequencies start at 1.8 MHz
and include everything above 300 GHz.

Within that range of frequencies, there are lots of materials that are
"insulators" that have large dielectric losses.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

and in particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity#Lossy_medium

" For frequencies at which dipole orientations cannot follow the applied
field due to the viscosity of the medium, absorption of the field's energy
leads to energy dissipation"

Yeah, so what?

You do understand that they are referring to the molecular dipoles in the
insulator, don't you?

You are a babbling idiot.

I am collecting evidences. Thanks for your input.

Evidences (sic) of what, that you are a babbling idiot?

So, next question:

The "energy dissipation" means heat.

Of course.

In case of the bare wire the air is heated.

Nope.

This just shows you have no idea what permittivity and conductivity mean and
you haven't a clue what you are babbing about.

For isolated the insulation.
Is it possible to burn off an insulation which have large dielectric losses?
S*

If you had the slightest understanding of the very first equation of the
referenced link and the text that follows, you would know the answer is yes.

Since you apparently read the link and still asked the question, I can only
conclude you are an idiot.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote ...
"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

and in particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity#Lossy_medium

" For frequencies at which dipole orientations cannot follow the applied
field due to the viscosity of the medium, absorption of the field's
energy
leads to energy dissipation"

Yeah, so what?

You do understand that they are referring to the molecular dipoles in the
insulator, don't you?

I do.

This just shows you have no idea what permittivity and conductivity mean
and
you haven't a clue what you are babbing about.

As you know I do not understand why in XXI century most scientists use the
hydraulic analogy.
Permittivity and polarisation are from the hydraulic analogy.
Now conductivity and electrostriction should be used.
S*

"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

wrote ...
"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

and in particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity#Lossy_medium

" For frequencies at which dipole orientations cannot follow the applied
field due to the viscosity of the medium, absorption of the field's
energy
leads to energy dissipation"

Yeah, so what?

You do understand that they are referring to the molecular dipoles in the
insulator, don't you?

I do.

Obviously not or you wouldn't have posted anything you have posted.

This just shows you have no idea what permittivity and conductivity mean
and
you haven't a clue what you are babbing about.

As you know I do not understand why in XXI century most scientists use the
hydraulic analogy.

The hydraulic analogy is use to teach basics to children.

Permittivity and polarisation are from the hydraulic analogy.

Nope, you haven't a clue what permittivity and polarization are.

Now conductivity and electrostriction should be used.

Babbling, word salad, nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote ...
"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

As you know I do not understand why in XXI century most scientists use
the
hydraulic analogy.

The hydraulic analogy is use to teach basics to children.

The fluxes are for students. The divrotH = 0 also.

Permittivity and polarisation are from the hydraulic analogy.

Nope, you haven't a clue what permittivity and polarization are.

Now conductivity and electrostriction should be used.

Babbling, word salad, nonsense.

Electrostriction is a new. The "" For frequencies at which dipole
orientations cannot follow the applied field "
is rather old.
Do not stay in Heaviside water.
S*

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:21:54 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote
To radiate what?

Jeff wrote:

I'm perfectly aware of what Jeff wrote.
What are you going to write? It is a very simple question:

To radiate what?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC