| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 13 sep, 15:31, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 22:46:16 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: PSE explain me MISMATCH. What is the characteristic Z of free space or air? What is the characteristic Z of Water (plain, with mud, or salty)? What is the ratio between the two? How much power in one, transits the interface and proceeds through the other? [hint] if not much, it is reflected at the interface. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hey Richard I said you, "mismatch" it is a magical word. TL reflected waves also are explainabe with "mismatch" word. However mismatch it is a name for a physical phenomena, what is that? When we talk about a traveling wave reaching the "mismatch" point we can try to explain WHY the reflection occur. You can talk about electric or magnetic field collapsing in discontinuity, etc. One step beyond of a magical word there are another magical words, electricity, magnetism for example, well that is the matter: to advance in de why's and the how's, otherwise we had remained in the realm of Newton and Huygens. (read about Compton effect discovery) 73 - Miguel LU6ETJ |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 9/13/2010 12:15 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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). Ions in copper vibrate with the acoustic frequencies. Cool! Which frequencies are the acoustic ones? tom K0TAR |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
"Art Unwin" wrote ... On Sep 13, 12:15 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: In the lattice are the ducts. Not all electrons are in them. Ions in copper vibrate with the acoustic frequencies. At the higher frequencies the AC conductivity increases. So there are more electrons. Consider that on the Earth is excess of electrons. Where did you get the idea that electrons that are accelerated are a intrinsic part of the diamagnetic material? In the clouds are electrons. We assume that they are on the surface of the droplets. But they jump between the droplets. So the skin effect or your surface current is possible. The air is full of particles from the Sun looking for a place on a diamagnetic material to rest. The size of these particle is such that a tensile force is applied to a surface and is of the smallest mass possible so the speed of light can be obtained. The force vectors on the surface of the radiater is the surface current and the displacement current which in conjunction supplies acceleration with spin to generate charge in a straight line projection to counter gravity. Nature loves simplicity does it not? Nature yes but the teachers not. You also use many the teacher terms (vectors and so on). S* |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote: I said you, "mismatch" it is a magical word. TL reflected waves also are explainabe with "mismatch" word. However mismatch it is a name for a physical phenomena, what is that? Water/Air Most people would agree that both are physical. When we talk about a traveling wave Hi Miguel, Who is "we?" "Traveling Waves" have their own special meaning, and that meaning is unnecessary for this discussion. reaching the "mismatch" point we We? can try to explain WHY the reflection occur. If you choose, but the WHY is unnecessary too. Skip the magic words, as you call them. Everything you discuss is available, by parts, but together nothing changes anything. A transmission line is an artificial medium. It is artificial in the sense of being man-made. Being artificial, it attempts to be similar to nature's available media. The electronics is same for all. Discontinuities, interfaces, abound in both artificial realms and natural realms. Their behavior is governed by the same physics - only the parameters are different (which is the nature of reality). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 9/14/2010 3:06 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
wrote . net... On 9/13/2010 12:15 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote: 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). Ions in copper vibrate with the acoustic frequencies. Cool! Which frequencies are the acoustic ones? Do not you heard about the kids telephone? The two cans and the wire. The ions in the wire are the medium for the acoustic waves. For the electric waves the medium are the electrons. Maroon. tom K0TAR |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 14 sep, 19:59, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: I said you, "mismatch" it is a magical word. TL reflected waves also are explainabe with "mismatch" word. However mismatch it is a name for a physical phenomena, what is that? Water/Air Most people would agree that both are physical. When we talk about a traveling wave Hi Miguel, Who is "we?" *"Traveling Waves" have their own special meaning, and that meaning is unnecessary for this discussion. reaching the "mismatch" point we We? can try to explain WHY the reflection occur. If you choose, but the WHY is unnecessary too. Skip the magic words, as you call them. *Everything you discuss is available, by parts, but together nothing changes anything. A transmission line is an artificial medium. *It is artificial in the sense of being man-made. *Being artificial, it attempts to be similar to nature's available media. *The electronics is same for all. Discontinuities, interfaces, abound in both artificial realms and natural realms. *Their behavior is governed by the same physics - only the parameters are different (which is the nature of reality). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Good mornig Richard You are right my friend, there are not conduction currents, there not displacement currents, there are not electrical and magnetic fields, there are not electric charges neither electrical dipoles in soil and water, just "mismatch" and "discontinuities" (do explain antenna radiation with "mismatch") I wonder why those evil teachers make me spend my time studying those things. Well... now I will return to my science fiction physics books :) :) 73 Miguel SRI, |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:11:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote: there are not conduction currents, there not displacement currents, there are not electrical and magnetic fields, there are not electric charges neither electrical dipoles in soil and water, Hi Miguel, There aren't? You have problems. just "mismatch" and "discontinuities" and more problems. (do explain antenna radiation with "mismatch") ******** Part One of Explanation ******** What about a conductive antenna is matched to an (relatively) unconductive air (or free space for that matter)? When your RF, conducting down the transmission line, sees the antenna, it finds either a match and continues into the antenna, or finds a mismatch and is reflected (yeah, some cannot accept the concept of reflected power - so let's say that the energy does not cross the interface except by some proportion in degree to the mismatch). For what RF power/energy that does get into the radiating element, it conducts down to the end of the element - and guess what? - it stops conducting further in that direction. Strange that this has to be said, being obvious in the first degree. So, we have the antenna with some characteristic Z - can you put a number to it? We have the surrounding medium with some characteristic Z. They have some integral (meaning a number, integer) relationship. Dare I call it mismatch? When you look at the current distribution along a half wave dipole, does it not exhibit a standing wave? If there were not a mismatch, where did that come from? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
"Richard Clark" wrote ... On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:11:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: there are not conduction currents, there not displacement currents, there are not electrical and magnetic fields, there are not electric charges neither electrical dipoles in soil and water, (do explain antenna radiation with "mismatch") For what RF power/energy that does get into the radiating element, it conducts down to the end of the element - and guess what? - it stops conducting further in that direction. Are you sure that there no thy field emission? Strange that this has to be said, being obvious in the first degree. The field emission is also in the first degree. When you look at the current distribution along a half wave dipole, does it not exhibit a standing wave? If there were not a mismatch, where did that come from? It the field emision is strong the VSWR is 1 and no standing wave. Am I right? S* |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:19:49 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: Am I right? Your trolley jumped the rails entirely. Mismatch may well serve as a reason for this too. Consider: A train traveling 89mph left Cincinnati at 12PM. An airplane flew out of Denver at 12:10PM going in the same direction. When will they dock at the same time in Seattle if they are in transit and Daylight Savings makes its changeover next month? For complete credit: What day did the train leave? What day did the airplane arrive? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 15 sep, 14:01, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:11:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: there are not conduction currents, there not displacement currents, there are not electrical and magnetic fields, there are not electric charges neither electrical dipoles in soil and water, Hi Miguel, There aren't? *You have problems. just "mismatch" and "discontinuities" *and more problems. (do explain antenna radiation with "mismatch") ******** Part One of Explanation ******** What about a conductive antenna is matched to an (relatively) unconductive air (or free space for that matter)? When your RF, conducting down the transmission line, sees the antenna, it finds either a match and continues into the antenna, or finds a mismatch and is reflected (yeah, some cannot accept the concept of reflected power - so let's say that the energy does not cross the interface except by some proportion in degree to the mismatch). For what RF power/energy that does get into the radiating element, it conducts down to the end of the element - and guess what? - it stops conducting further in that direction. Strange that this has to be said, being obvious in the first degree. So, we have the antenna with some characteristic Z - can you put a number to it? *We have the surrounding medium with some characteristic Z. *They have some integral (meaning a number, integer) relationship. Dare I call it mismatch? When you look at the current distribution along a half wave dipole, does it not exhibit a standing wave? *If there were not a mismatch, where did that come from? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Oh, yes, I quite understand, balls bounce against walls "because walls are discontinuities" there is a "mismatch in the media" c'est finite, that's all folks! good "explanation", why to ask more?, why to ask "why"? (one step back, the explanation was "God"). Good night Richard (it is time for my catechism) It is my karma... I know... my second name is Ricardo :D Miguel |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:43:51 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote: why to ask more? Because everthing else was "magic" to you. Strange sort of limitation, but there you are with a less than satisfactory answer. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 16 sep, 00:14, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:43:51 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: why to ask more? Because everthing else was "magic" to you. *Strange sort of limitation, but there you are with a less than satisfactory answer. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC No, this form of question "why to ask more?" it is ironic, in spanish means that "you", not me, do not want to ask more. You stop the questioning in a high level (as in software "high level" meaning) useful descriptive model of the world and refuse to look for the underlying process responsible of that. "Magic" for me it is = PRINT "hello world", because beneath it is asm code for PRINT instruction, more deep it is movement of bits inside the processor, more lower yet it is the electricity. To explain all program operations perhaps we do not need go beyond PRINT statement knowledge, but BASIC it is not the end of the story... Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...? it is the more conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation? Do better shows to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to radiate EM energy. Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the paper's experiment and has got nil results. Until today we have only scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work". You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is no good for me", that is not science! that is only your tastes :P You do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham fellows, you like quarreling!, hi hi, Be a good boy, dust off your undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings, interesting things happen at the bottom :) 73 - Miguel |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote: Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...? I have to think about that question for a while. At the risk of translation problems, 1. I don't think only boundary conditions; 2. I don't think I am the only one who studies boundary conditions; 3. Boundary conditions are not incorrect solutions. it is the more conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation? Were you looking for an answer that refutes electrolite charges radiation? Are YOU refuting electrolite charges radiation? Are electrolite charges radiation the only solution? Is there radiation if there are no electrolite charges? [You have already skipped past dielectric lensing which refracts radiation too.] Do better shows to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to radiate EM energy. Why? Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the paper's experiment and has got nil results. Why does it have to be nil? Until today we have only scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work". You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is no good for me", I really said that? Looks like a bad translation with extra editing. Maybe if you use my original post with cut-and-paste. that is not science! that is only your tastes :P "Mismatch" it is another magic word Is this scientific? You do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham fellows, you like quarreling!, Hmmm, your argument sounds like conservative pleas. Look at second quote above: "more conventional." I introduce another analytical perspective and you appeal to old books reciting stale material: hi hi, Be a good boy, dust off your undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings Moldy too. Your question that I long ago responded to was: what other classical process could explain the EM earth reflection? and you are very disappointed that I did not boringly repeat the SAME dusty classical process! Why did you ask? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 16 sep, 02:38, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...? I have to think about that question for a while. *At the risk of translation problems, 1. *I don't think only boundary conditions; 2. *I don't think I am the only one who studies boundary conditions; 3. *Boundary conditions are not incorrect solutions. it is the more conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation? Were you looking for an answer that refutes electrolite charges radiation? *Are YOU refuting electrolite charges radiation? *Are electrolite charges radiation the only solution? *Is there radiation if there are no electrolite charges? *[You have already skipped past dielectric lensing which refracts radiation too.] Do better shows to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to radiate EM energy. Why? Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the paper's experiment and has got nil results. Why does it have to be nil? Until today we have only scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work". You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is no good for me", I really said that? *Looks like a bad translation with extra editing. Maybe if you use my original post with cut-and-paste. that is not science! that is only your tastes :P "Mismatch" it is another magic word Is this scientific? You do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham fellows, you like quarreling!, Hmmm, your argument sounds like conservative pleas. *Look at second quote above: "more conventional." * *I introduce another analytical perspective and you appeal to old books reciting stale material: hi hi, *Be a good boy, dust off your undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings Moldy too. Your question that I long ago responded to was:what other classical process could explain the EM earth reflection? and you are very disappointed that I did not boringly repeat the SAME dusty classical process! * Why did you ask? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC SRI Richard I am not fond to eristics. Have a good day and thank you for your company. Nos vemos!. Miguel |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 7 sep, 16:22, Roy Lewallen wrote:
On 9/6/2010 5:06 PM, Frank wrote: On 7 MHz a dipole constructed of salt water: Er = 81, * conductivity 5 S/m, and 0.5" diameter has a free space efficiency of 0.08%. *i.e. with 100 W input the total radiated power = 80 mW. Frank (VE6CB) That looked so bad I had to run an analysis to see for myself. Sure enough, it's that bad. And even with a 0.25 inch diameter column at 146 MHz, the efficiency is only on the order of 1%. A foot and a half of wire vs. a pump, power source, and ferrite transformer? No contest. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Hello Roy I do not saw this post. I do not know how you make the simulation, I try a similar one changing "Wire Loss" to "User defined" an put there 5 ohm-m. The "Average gain" results was very bad, as yours, then, thinking of aspect ratio of IEEE antenna paper (and big masses involved in water and soil reflections) I modeled it with 300 mm diameter wire. New Average Gain now was 0.53 = -2.65 dB, pretty near values given in paper. Ita was approximateli correct my procedure on EzNEC? what do you think about results? Thank you very much in advance. Miguel LU6ETJ PD: I will repeat this post in another point of thread becaus this one it is older. |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 13 sep, 17:23, Roy Lewallen wrote:
On 9/13/2010 11:31 AM, Richard Clark wrote: What is the characteristic Z of free space or air? What is the characteristic Z of Water (plain, with mud, or salty)? . . . Anyone with EZNEC, including the demo program, can easily get the value of intrinsic Z of various media. Just define a Real ground type in any model and enter the ground constants. Then open the Utilities menu and select Ground Info. A wave normal to the ground will reflect exactly as it would from the junction of two transmission lines with one having the impedance of free space (about 377 + j0 ohms) and the other having the ground's impedance. The nature of oblique reflections depend on the polarization of the wave relative to the reflecting plane (the ground), but a reflection always occurs whenever the wave encounters a change in the impedance of the medium, or a "mismatch" as Richard calls it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Hello Roy: Very good and youseful info. Is it possible change the reflecting angle in that result? Miguel |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 9/16/2010 1:41 PM, lu6etj wrote:
Hello Roy I do not saw this post. I do not know how you make the simulation, I try a similar one changing "Wire Loss" to "User defined" an put there 5 ohm-m. The "Average gain" results was very bad, as yours, then, thinking of aspect ratio of IEEE antenna paper (and big masses involved in water and soil reflections) I modeled it with 300 mm diameter wire. New Average Gain now was 0.53 = -2.65 dB, pretty near values given in paper. Ita was approximateli correct my procedure on EzNEC? what do you think about results? Thank you very much in advance. Miguel LU6ETJ PD: I will repeat this post in another point of thread becaus this one it is older. The conductivity of sea water is about 5 S/m. This is a resistivity of 0.02 ohm-m, which is the value you should enter as wire loss. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 9/16/2010 1:45 PM, lu6etj wrote:
On 13 sep, 17:23, Roy wrote: On 9/13/2010 11:31 AM, Richard Clark wrote: What is the characteristic Z of free space or air? What is the characteristic Z of Water (plain, with mud, or salty)? . . . Anyone with EZNEC, including the demo program, can easily get the value of intrinsic Z of various media. Just define a Real ground type in any model and enter the ground constants. Then open the Utilities menu and select Ground Info. A wave normal to the ground will reflect exactly as it would from the junction of two transmission lines with one having the impedance of free space (about 377 + j0 ohms) and the other having the ground's impedance. The nature of oblique reflections depend on the polarization of the wave relative to the reflecting plane (the ground), but a reflection always occurs whenever the wave encounters a change in the impedance of the medium, or a "mismatch" as Richard calls it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Hello Roy: Very good and youseful info. Is it possible change the reflecting angle in that result? Miguel Sorry, I'm not sure what result you mean. You can't change the reflecting angle -- the angle of reflection is always equal to the angle of incidence. And the intrinsic impedance of a medium doesn't change when a wave strikes it, reflects off it, or propagates through it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 16 sep, 18:15, Roy Lewallen wrote:
On 9/16/2010 1:45 PM, lu6etj wrote: On 13 sep, 17:23, Roy *wrote: On 9/13/2010 11:31 AM, Richard Clark wrote: What is the characteristic Z of free space or air? What is the characteristic Z of Water (plain, with mud, or salty)? . . . Anyone with EZNEC, including the demo program, can easily get the value of intrinsic Z of various media. Just define a Real ground type in any model and enter the ground constants. Then open the Utilities menu and select Ground Info. A wave normal to the ground will reflect exactly as it would from the junction of two transmission lines with one having the impedance of free space (about 377 + j0 ohms) and the other having the ground's impedance. The nature of oblique reflections depend on the polarization of the wave relative to the reflecting plane (the ground), but a reflection always occurs whenever the wave encounters a change in the impedance of the medium, or a "mismatch" as Richard calls it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Hello Roy: Very good and youseful info. Is it possible change the reflecting angle in that result? Miguel Sorry, I'm not sure what result you mean. You can't change the reflecting angle -- the angle of reflection is always equal to the angle of incidence. And the intrinsic impedance of a medium doesn't change when a wave strikes it, reflects off it, or propagates through it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL- Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita - I wanted to mean to choose the incident angle for possible anothers calculations, Sorry I get confussed with translated meaning of angle in = "Intrinsec Z = xxx at ANGLE of xxx deg, I understood as incidence angle instead of phase angle, here we can not acostumed to write in that form and I translated bad the meaning. Today I posted another EZ-NEC question about a simulation of liquid antenna based in yours, but I did on earlier thread post point, have you see it? (Thank for you quick answer) 73 - Miguel |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 9/16/2010 3:12 PM, lu6etj wrote:
On 16 sep, 18:15, Roy wrote: Sorry, I'm not sure what result you mean. You can't change the reflecting angle -- the angle of reflection is always equal to the angle of incidence. And the intrinsic impedance of a medium doesn't change when a wave strikes it, reflects off it, or propagates through it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL- Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita - I wanted to mean to choose the incident angle for possible anothers calculations, Sorry I get confussed with translated meaning of angle in = "Intrinsec Z = xxx at ANGLE of xxx deg, I understood as incidence angle instead of phase angle, here we can not acostumed to write in that form and I translated bad the meaning. Intrinsic impedance is a complex number unless the medium is lossless like free space, so the impedance of ground is complex. A complex number can be expressed in rectangular form (real and imaginary) or polar form (magnitude and angle). EZNEC shows the impedance in polar form which includes an angle. The angle is part of the impedance and has nothing to do with any field. Many scientific calculators can convert the polar number into rectangular form if you prefer. Today I posted another EZ-NEC question about a simulation of liquid antenna based in yours, but I did on earlier thread post point, have you see it? Yes, I posted a response. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 16 sep, 18:11, Roy Lewallen wrote:
On 9/16/2010 1:41 PM, lu6etj wrote: Hello Roy I do not saw this post. I do not know how you make the simulation, I try a similar one changing "Wire Loss" to "User defined" an put there 5 ohm-m. The "Average gain" results was very bad, as yours, then, thinking of aspect ratio of IEEE antenna paper (and big masses involved in water and soil reflections) I modeled it with 300 mm diameter wire. New Average Gain now was 0.53 = -2.65 dB, pretty near values given in paper. Ita was approximateli correct my procedure on EzNEC? what do you think about results? Thank you very much in advance. Miguel LU6ETJ PD: I will repeat this post in another point of thread becaus this one it is older. The conductivity of sea water is about 5 S/m. This is a resistivity of 0.02 ohm-m, which is the value you should enter as wire loss. Roy Lewallen, W7EL- Ocultar texto de la cita - - Mostrar texto de la cita - Sorry, it is not my day, I didn't see this answer neither. Ok, TKS, my mistake, now I put 1/5 S/m = 0.2 ohms-m (free space simulation, 0,97 m length, 10 segs) and similar results to bad resistivity but with 50 mm wire diameter now (0,57). Do you trust in this results?, seems more optimistics than IEEE paper. Miguel |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 9/16/2010 4:01 PM, lu6etj wrote:
Sorry, it is not my day, I didn't see this answer neither. Ok, TKS, my mistake, now I put 1/5 S/m = 0.2 ohms-m (free space simulation, 0,97 m length, 10 segs) and similar results to bad resistivity but with 50 mm wire diameter now (0,57). Do you trust in this results?, seems more optimistics than IEEE paper. Miguel Yes, I trust these results. If the IEEE paper agrees with your earlier calculation, I suspect that the author made the same mistake you did. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 9/16/2010 5:36 PM, Roy Lewallen wrote:
On 9/16/2010 4:01 PM, lu6etj wrote: Sorry, it is not my day, I didn't see this answer neither. Ok, TKS, my mistake, now I put 1/5 S/m = 0.2 ohms-m (free space simulation, 0,97 m length, 10 segs) and similar results to bad resistivity but with 50 mm wire diameter now (0,57). Do you trust in this results?, seems more optimistics than IEEE paper. Miguel Yes, I trust these results. If the IEEE paper agrees with your earlier calculation, I suspect that the author made the same mistake you did. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Oops, I just took another look at your posting. You should put in 0.02, not 0.2 ohm-m. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 9/16/2010 2:09 PM, lu6etj wrote:
On 16 sep, 02:38, Richard wrote: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...? I have to think about that question for a while. At the risk of translation problems, 1. I don't think only boundary conditions; 2. I don't think I am the only one who studies boundary conditions; 3. Boundary conditions are not incorrect solutions. it is the more conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation? Were you looking for an answer that refutes electrolite charges radiation? Are YOU refuting electrolite charges radiation? Are electrolite charges radiation the only solution? Is there radiation if there are no electrolite charges? [You have already skipped past dielectric lensing which refracts radiation too.] Do better shows to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to radiate EM energy. Why? Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the paper's experiment and has got nil results. Why does it have to be nil? Until today we have only scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work". You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is no good for me", I really said that? Looks like a bad translation with extra editing. Maybe if you use my original post with cut-and-paste. that is not science! that is only your tastes :P "Mismatch" it is another magic word Is this scientific? You do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham fellows, you like quarreling!, Hmmm, your argument sounds like conservative pleas. Look at second quote above: "more conventional." I introduce another analytical perspective and you appeal to old books reciting stale material: hi hi, Be a good boy, dust off your undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings Moldy too. Your question that I long ago responded to was:what other classical process could explain the EM earth reflection? and you are very disappointed that I did not boringly repeat the SAME dusty classical process! Why did you ask? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC SRI Richard I am not fond to eristics. Have a good day and thank you for your company. Nos vemos!. Miguel Richard is a pit bull. You riled him up. It happens. He can't help it. tom K0TAR |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 16 sep, 21:41, Roy Lewallen wrote:
On 9/16/2010 5:36 PM, Roy Lewallen wrote: On 9/16/2010 4:01 PM, lu6etj wrote: Sorry, it is not my day, I didn't see this answer neither. Ok, TKS, my mistake, now I put 1/5 S/m = 0.2 ohms-m (free space simulation, 0,97 m length, 10 segs) and similar results to bad resistivity but with 50 mm wire diameter now (0,57). Do you trust in this results?, seems more optimistics than IEEE paper. Miguel Yes, I trust these results. If the IEEE paper agrees with your earlier calculation, I suspect that the author made the same mistake you did. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Oops, I just took another look at your posting. You should put in 0.02, not 0.2 ohm-m. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Oooops... Well... seems this it in not "our" day :) 5 S/m it is 0.2 ohm-m test data and calculations: http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...hm%27sLaw.html, by the way: I do not use calculators, so much mistakes made my fingers... I am happy since MathCad come to my life :D ...... IEEE author said to have made measurements. The really interesting thing it is EZNEC seems to confirm the hipotesis. 73 - Miguel |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On Sep 8, 9:35*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
On 9/8/2010 8:06 PM, Sal M. Onella wrote: On Sep 7, 12:22 pm, Roy *wrote: That looked so bad I had to run an analysis to see for myself. Sure enough, it's that bad. And even with a 0.25 inch diameter column at 146 MHz, the efficiency is only on the order of 1%. A foot and a half of wire vs. a pump, power source, and ferrite transformer? No contest. Roy Lewallen, W7EL I know Dan Tam, the SPAWAR engineer in the video. *He's a pretty sharp guy. *I hesitate to throw him into the Lions' Den but I will if you let me watch. :-) "Sal" It's a sad comment on the state of this newsgroup that an objective statement of what are believed to be facts is taken as "throwing [the engineer] into the lions' den". It's not my intent at all to impugn the engineer. Surely he's aware of the efficiency of the "antennas" he's creating, so either my (and Frank's) calculations are grossly incorrect or SPAWAR thinks there's a market for such inefficient antennas. It would be educational to know which of these is the case. It was interesting that there was no mention in the video of very low efficiency, but I guess that's to be expected for a promotional piece produced by a marketing department looking for investors. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Sorry Roy. I meant that tongue-in-cheek regarding the rough handling that routinely goes on in newsgroups. This one's generally pretty civil. "Sal" (KD6VKW) |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On Sep 11, 8:13*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/11/2010 7:46 PM, 'Doc wrote: Having dealt with water streams for a while, I wonder how the stream is measured, because all streams break up into droplets at some point well before they appear to do so. * - 'Doc You are absolutely correct. *Would be interesting to have real time monitoring of the match, field strength in relation to a standard 1/4 wave and real power delivered to the water stream. *I am thinking this is the dummies, dummy load. *Or, the dummy load of the century ... could sure use a 5KW ferrite core like he has, just sink the signal into a "barrel of sal****er dummy load" ... would be nice to be have this dis-proven and start discussing why. Who knows, when the stream goes "live" perhaps the feedline "lights up" as a radiator. *As someone already pointed out, the repeater makes one highly suspicious. I mean, is he line of sight from the repeater? *How far is he from the repeater? *Why didn't he just choose direct contact? * Etc., etc. *He certainly could have supplied us with better. I just might write him and ask him for a new youtube video and different test parameters. Regards, JS The narration says he's 30 miles from the repeater. He dialed up the "OTAY" memory on his HT and the 146.640 machine is on Mount Otay, near the Mexican border and well inland. He is definitely line-of site to it from anywhere around the bay, "Sal" (KD6VKW) |
Amateur invents miracle antenna which defies the laws of physics!
On 9/18/2010 11:12 PM, Sal M. Onella wrote:
... The narration says he's 30 miles from the repeater. He dialed up the "OTAY" memory on his HT and the 146.640 machine is on Mount Otay, near the Mexican border and well inland. He is definitely line-of site to it from anywhere around the bay, "Sal" (KD6VKW) What would be most interesting, and an assistance to your average amateur, is have him tie a string which is somehow attached and held fast but blown in an upwards direction, within the stream of water. Then, you finally have the ability to tune, load and communicate on the proverbial "wet string!" And, vindication of all those who have claimed such in old times ... One small step for him, one giant leap for amateurs! yeah! Regards, JS |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
On 14 sep, 05:06, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"tom" wrotenews:4c8eceb5$0$24412$80 ... On 9/13/2010 12:15 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote: 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). Ions in copper vibrate with the acoustic frequencies. Cool! *Which frequencies are the acoustic ones? Do not you heard about the kids telephone? The two cans and the wire. The ions in the wire are the medium for the acoustic waves. For the electric waves the medium are the electrons. The same is with the Sun. The bumps on the surface we see after 8 min. The auroras after a few days. S* Sorry S* I did not read this post (I have to solve aome problem with Google "tree view"). When I talked about ions I do it thinking in electrolytes containing feee heavy ions, not isolators. My doubts with "mass" are about radiation of heavy ions with low electric fields. Larmor analysis shows radiaton of ions must be various orders of magnitud below radiation of electrons at lower electric fields intensities because its larger mass. We need higher electric fields intensities to get accelerations capable of radiating equivalent power obtained from electrons with lower E fields, then I believe they are not responsibles of useful possible EM radiation in our conditions. Athough I have built ionic 50 ohms dummy loads with salt and water, then, I saw it is possible to establish VHF frequencies currents in such electroytes, however Larmor equation would dismiss (I think) efficient ions's radiation from it. Physics books explain EM wave reflections saying low energy EM photons can transfer its energy to electrons, and they inmediatily return this energy at the same frequencies (they not become "excited"), then I think that a possible explanatory mechanism is that radiating charges in electrolyte be simply the not free electrons (not heavy ions) vibrations induced by electric field in electrolite. I do not quite trust in NEC optimistic results I got, because I do not know if resistivity model includes electrolytic conductors, but this it is only my ignorance about it, not an sustented opinion. 73 Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ |
"Ionic Liquid" Antenna
"lu6etj" wroye ... On 14 sep, 05:06, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: For the electric waves the medium are the electrons. The same is with the Sun. The bumps on the surface we see after 8 min. The auroras after a few days. S* Sorry S* I did not read this post (I have to solve aome problem with Google "tree view"). When I talked about ions I do it thinking in electrolytes containing feee heavy ions, not isolators. For electrons the electrolytes are like the insulators. My doubts with "mass" are about radiation of heavy ions with low electric fields. Larmor analysis shows radiaton of ions must be various orders of magnitud below radiation of electrons at lower electric fields intensities because its larger mass. We need higher electric fields intensities to get accelerations capable of radiating equivalent power obtained from electrons with lower E fields, then I believe they are not responsibles of useful possible EM radiation in our conditions. Stream of salt water is like a mast made of insulator with its surface sokaked with the salt water. It is in state of permanent surface breakdown. So the electrons can flow and the "mast" works like a metal antenna. Athough I have built ionic 50 ohms dummy loads with salt and water, then, I saw it is possible to establish VHF frequencies currents in such electroytes, however Larmor equation would dismiss (I think) efficient ions's radiation from it. Physics books explain EM wave reflections saying low energy EM photons can transfer its energy to electrons, and they inmediatily return this energy at the same frequencies (they not become "excited"), then I think that a possible explanatory mechanism is that radiating charges in electrolyte be simply the not free electrons (not heavy ions) vibrations induced by electric field in electrolite. I do not quite trust in NEC optimistic results I got, because I do not know if resistivity model includes electrolytic conductors, but this it is only my ignorance about it, not an sustented opinion. I have not evidences but I can bet that there are the surface phenomenons. S* |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com