Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jul 31, 5:34 pm, wrote:
"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

"In fact, most dipolar solids exhibit extremely small dielectric
losses
since W tends to be extremely large. Water-free ice, for example
does not
heat significantly under microwave irradiation." From:
http://www.tan-delta.com/mw_heating.html

"Quartz glass has a very high dielectric strength but a very low
electric
conductivity, even at high temperature, high voltage and high
frequency,
nearly without electric loss in the range of the frequencies applied.
Therefore quartz glass is an excellent high temperature dielectric
material."


I wish he would talk to art more, the two of them are more fun when
they are combining their gibberish. i guess they just don't realize
that the technobabble they have come up with doesn't really mean
anything useful, and little pieces of knowledge taken out of context
just can't be strung back together in any order to prove something
they think is right.

The question was: "Does solid insulation makes the radiation weaker or stop
it?"

And the question has been answered many times now by several people.

In the real and practical world, no, insulation will not stop the radiation
from an RF antenna and depending on the frequency and material of the
insulation some of the radiation will be aborbed as heat by the insulation.

Instead the answer you serve me the word salad.
S*

What you post is word salad.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...com/word+salad


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Aug 1, 4:52*pm, wrote:
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"K1TTT" wrote
....
On Jul 31, 5:34 pm, wrote:
"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

"In fact, most dipolar solids exhibit extremely small dielectric
losses
since W tends to be extremely large. Water-free ice, for example
does not
heat significantly under microwave irradiation." From:
http://www.tan-delta.com/mw_heating.html

"Quartz glass has a very high dielectric strength but a very low
electric
conductivity, even at high temperature, high voltage and high
frequency,
nearly without electric loss in the range of the frequencies applied.
Therefore quartz glass is an excellent high temperature dielectric
material."

I wish he would talk to art more, the two of them are more fun when
they are combining their gibberish. i guess they just don't realize
that the technobabble they have come up with doesn't really mean
anything useful, and little pieces of knowledge taken out of context
just can't be strung back together in any order to prove something
they think is right.

The question was: "Does solid insulation makes the radiation weaker or stop
it?"

And the question has been answered many times now by several people.

In the real and practical world, no, insulation will not stop the radiation
from an RF antenna and depending on the frequency and material of the
insulation some of the radiation will be aborbed as heat by the insulation.

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Aug 1, 4:52 pm, wrote:
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


The question was: "Does solid insulation makes the radiation weaker or
stop
it?"

And the question has been answered many times now by several people.

In the real and practical world, no, insulation will not stop the
radiation
from an RF antenna and depending on the frequency and material of the
insulation some of the radiation will be aborbed as heat by the
insulation.

The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural" insulations:
the ice and the wet?

Sometimes are on your dipoles an ice or water.
They should melt/evaporate in the places where are picks of the voltage.
Is it observed?

No ice and rain in your area?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Aug 1, 4:52 pm, wrote:
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


The question was: "Does solid insulation makes the radiation weaker or
stop
it?"

And the question has been answered many times now by several people.

In the real and practical world, no, insulation will not stop the
radiation
from an RF antenna and depending on the frequency and material of the
insulation some of the radiation will be aborbed as heat by the
insulation.

The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural" insulations:
the ice and the wet?

What part of the words "insulation" and "insulator" do you not understand?

There is nothing special about ice or liquid water and the electrical
properties of both can be easily looked up.

There is nothing mystical about something that is "natural".

snip remaining babble


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural"
insulations:
the ice and the wet?

What part of the words "insulation" and "insulator" do you not understand?

There is nothing special about ice or liquid water and the electrical
properties of both can be easily looked up.

There is nothing mystical about something that is "natural".

You assume that everything "can be easily looked up". It is right for the
old theories.

But now is the new Art's "time dependent Gauss law" theory.

At the ends of the dipole the alternate electric field is produced. There is
the Lodges glow.

So it is interesting if that glow is also visible on insulated wires and
what is emitted from the antenna.

You have opportunity to develop the Art's theory. Do not be lazy.
S*

"Szczepan Bia?ek" wrote:

wrote ...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural"
insulations:
the ice and the wet?

What part of the words "insulation" and "insulator" do you not understand?

There is nothing special about ice or liquid water and the electrical
properties of both can be easily looked up.

There is nothing mystical about something that is "natural".

You assume that everything "can be easily looked up". It is right for the
old theories.

But now is the new Art's "time dependent Gauss law" theory.

At the ends of the dipole the alternate electric field is produced. There is
the Lodges glow.

So it is interesting if that glow is also visible on insulated wires and
what is emitted from the antenna.

You have opportunity to develop the Art's theory. Do not be lazy.
S*

Yet more babbling gibberish and word salad.

Seek medical help.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Aug 2, 7:12*pm, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:
....

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural"
insulations:
the ice and the wet?

What part of the words "insulation" and "insulator" do you not understand?
There is nothing special about ice or liquid water and the electrical
properties of both can be easily looked up.

There is nothing mystical about something that is "natural".

You assume that everything "can be easily looked up". It is right for the
old theories.

But now is the new Art's "time dependent Gauss law" theory.

At the ends of the dipole the alternate electric field is produced. There is
the Lodges glow.

So it is interesting if that glow is also visible on insulated wires and
what is emitted from the antenna.

You have opportunity to develop the Art's theory. Do not be lazy.
S*

i suggest you talk to art about art's theory, the rest of us on here
know that it is pure garbage. for your information gauss's law has
always been time dependent, art just doesn't understand that and
insists on rewriting and reinterpreting it. he is wrong, and you are
wasting time trying to follow him... but then again you are wasting
your time on just about everything you write on here anyway.

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Aug 2, 7:12 pm, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:

But now is the new Art's "time dependent Gauss law" theory.

At the ends of the dipole the alternate electric field is produced. There
is
the Lodges glow.

So it is interesting if that glow is also visible on insulated wires and
what is emitted from the antenna.

You have opportunity to develop the Art's theory. Do not be lazy.

i suggest you talk to art about art's theory, the rest of us on here
know that it is pure garbage. for your information gauss's law has
always been time dependent, art just doesn't understand that and
insists on rewriting and reinterpreting it. he is wrong, and you are
wasting time trying to follow him... but then again you are wasting
your time on just about everything you write on here anyway.

So the question "How the radio works? is still open.
S*

On 8/2/2010 2:12 PM, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
wrote ...
Szczepan wrote:


The was the additional question: "And what with the "natural"
insulations:
the ice and the wet?

What part of the words "insulation" and "insulator" do you not understand?

There is nothing special about ice or liquid water and the electrical
properties of both can be easily looked up.

There is nothing mystical about something that is "natural".

You assume that everything "can be easily looked up". It is right for the
old theories.


You're missing something very important here, and you ask for the
information and then discount it when it doesn't satisfy you.

The MEASURED CHARACTERISTICS of something cannot change just because the
theory explaining it has changed.

And it is quite easy to find. I'm surprised since you seem to be able
to find all the esoteric explanations of how the world works.

Your brain is broken, get it checked.

tom
K0TAR

"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 8/2/2010 2:12 PM, Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

You're missing something very important here, and you ask for the
information and then discount it when it doesn't satisfy you.

I encourage you to find the correct.

The MEASURED CHARACTERISTICS of something cannot change just because the
theory explaining it has changed.

Yes. But the permittivity is the result of the conductivity measurement.
Conductors, semiconductors and insulators are for students. It is
simplification.
The reality is more complex.

And it is quite easy to find. I'm surprised since you seem to be able to
find all the esoteric explanations of how the world works.

I can find milions papers on the theory of glow and losses in AC network.
The same should be for the radio frequences.
I was thinking that somebody from you have a link to such.

The AC glow is not simmetrical. So in the radio transmitter must be the
netto electrons flow.
Where can I find the DC ground current?

S*