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

On Sep 12, 3:13*am, 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

yeah, like compare the signal to one of those rubber coated dummy load
antennas.

On 9/12/2010 4:15 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
yeah, like compare the signal to one of those rubber coated dummy load
antennas.

Frankly, I thought the guy would have shown up by now laughing. Having
had a great laugh on us for attempting to take him seriously ... has me
wonderin'!

Regards,
JS

On 12 sep, 08:57, John Smith wrote:
On 9/12/2010 4:15 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
yeah, like compare the signal to one of those rubber coated dummy load
antennas.

Frankly, I thought the guy would have shown up by now laughing. *Having
had a great laugh on us for attempting to take him seriously ... has me
wonderin'!

Regards,
JS

Hello all

OK, this probabily is near a joke or hoax, but what about liquid/ionic/
dielectric in general? I have a pair of interesting links about it =

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1461138
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1508589...ennas_IEEE.pdf

Time ago I had some doubts about the mobility of ions in a liquid to
radiate and calculate how much an electron actually moves when the
antenna is radiating to use as a starting point.
The numbers (if I do not make mistakes) showed me to a current density
in the order of 5 A/mm^2, free electrons can take a trip of just one
three thousandth mm of copper ion radius, surprising result!, really I
did not expect such a small value ..., It showed me that electrons in
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).

We know sea water an earth EM wave reflections really are
reirradiation of EM energy, then, ionic antennas there are real
things, are there? However I haven not study the efficience of this
process.

What do you think about it?

Best regards

Miguel LU6ETJ

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1461138

Hi Miguel,

Let's see, half the power lost to the antenna:
"A simple monopole antenna was constructed and its reflected
impedance and radiation efficiency measured for salt solutions
of 2 conductivities and 2 monopole diameters. Two antennas
were constructed, 25 mm and 50 mm in diameter, with salt solution
at 35 ppt and 70 ppt. The resonant frequency was found to
be inversely proportional to salt solution column height,
with bandwidths of ?1 GHz (-10 dB S11 points) at 1.3 GHz."

A quarterwave monopole @1.3GHz would be 5.8cM tall and up to 5cM in
diameter? A mylar balloon filled with air (not water) wouldn't lose
half the power applied. Voila! Wide band, 3dB gain, lighter, and can
be made into any shape.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1508589...ennas_IEEE.pdf

This has been a topic here going back at least 15 years.

Time ago I had some doubts about the mobility of ions in a liquid to
radiate and calculate how much an electron actually moves when the
antenna is radiating to use as a starting point.
The numbers (if I do not make mistakes) showed me to a current density
in the order of 5 A/mm^2, free electrons can take a trip of just one
three thousandth mm of copper ion radius, surprising result!, really I
did not expect such a small value ..., It showed me that electrons in
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).

Consider a dielectric lens antenna. How much mobility there?

We know sea water an earth EM wave reflections really are
reirradiation of EM energy,

This reflection is a function of a severe mismatch between two poor
conductors. You don't need sea water to achieve the same thing.

What do you think about it?

Consult the authority on invention:
http://www.rubegoldberg.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 12 sep, 15:49, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1461138

Hi Miguel,

Let's see, half the power lost to the antenna:
* *"A simple monopole antenna was constructed and its reflected
* *impedance and radiation efficiency measured for salt solutions
* *of 2 conductivities and 2 monopole diameters. Two antennas
* *were constructed, 25 mm and 50 mm in diameter, with salt solution
* *at 35 ppt and 70 ppt. The resonant frequency was found to
* *be inversely proportional to salt solution column height,
* *with bandwidths of ?1 GHz (-10 dB S11 points) at 1.3 GHz."

A quarterwave monopole @1.3GHz would be 5.8cM tall and up to 5cM in
diameter? *A mylar balloon filled with air (not water) wouldn't lose
half the power applied. *Voila! *Wide band, 3dB gain, lighter, and can
be made into any shape.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1508589...rees_Antennas_...

This has been a topic here going back at least 15 years.

Time ago I had some doubts about the mobility of ions in a liquid to
radiate and calculate how much an electron actually moves when the
antenna is radiating to use as a starting point.
The numbers (if I do not make mistakes) showed me to a current density
in the order of 5 A/mm^2, free electrons can take a trip of just one
three thousandth mm of copper ion radius, surprising result!, really I
did not expect such a small value ..., It showed me that electrons in
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).

Consider a dielectric lens antenna. *How much mobility there?

We know sea water an earth EM wave reflections really are
reirradiation of EM energy,

This reflection is a function of a severe mismatch between two poor
conductors. *You don't need sea water to achieve the same thing.

What do you think about it?

Consult the authority on invention:http://www.rubegoldberg.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hello dear Richard, how are you? I hope very well with yours:

Mylar conductive ballon replacement it is not a valid refutation for
the hipotesis analized, that antenna was only a "test antenna", any
liquid antenna can be replaced by a metalic antenna...! what prove
that?

I was not be here fifty year ago :) (I suppose "ether" also must have
been treated in this newsgropup a hundred years ago :D ) what you
think about it (trees) at that time?

I do not know lens dielectric antennas, I learnt radiation it due
accelerating charges, electrons are charges, free ions also, non free
dielectric charges (E field induced dipoles) too; alternating electric
field applied to them produce movement on them, then acceleration,
then = radiation. Am I wrong? (yes I know, loss too sometimes).

You say: "This reflection is a function of a severe mismatch between
two poor
conductors. You don't need sea water to achieve the same thing"

What "two" conductors? you know air not work as a "conductor" in this
analitic environment, it would the same it there were empty vacuum,
reflecting medium properties are responsibles for earth reflections.

"Mismatch" it is another magic word, improper of you indeed my
friend!, not an explanation :)
Classic EM radiation (or the same "re-irradiation") it sometimes
explained due accelarating charges, and YES, I agree with you,
certainly "you do not need sea water to achieve the same thing", you
can do it with any other vibrating charge, sea water charges it is
only one possibility, conductors, soil substances are other familiar
things capable to do it.
We know waves are reflected to ionosphere by those mediums, we can
explain that reflections with incident electromagnetic fields and
earth surface induced currents; however, "current" not implies here
free electrons traveling miles inside a conductor, we have a "current"
with any little induced movement on a charge and if this movemente is
not constant we have acceleration then = EM radiation, what other
classical process could explain the EM earth reflection? I do not
know.

However I am not supporting practical liquid antennas here, I have not
made the experience and I have not theoretical enough knowledge
neither to prove or refute the hipotesis without much more working, I
only have some pointers to think over about it.

73

Miguel LU6ETJ

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:30:04 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hello dear Richard, how are you? I hope very well with yours:

Mylar conductive ballon replacement it is not a valid refutation for
the hipotesis analized, that antenna was only a "test antenna", any
liquid antenna can be replaced by a metalic antenna...! what prove
that?

Hi Miguel,

What does it prove? What does water prove? That it is a poor
replacement? Yes.

I do not know lens dielectric antennas, I learnt radiation it due
accelerating charges,

That repeated epithet is rather too simple. An electron is always
accelerating. A circular orbit guarantees that.

electrons are charges, free ions also, non free
dielectric charges (E field induced dipoles) too; alternating electric
field applied to them produce movement on them, then acceleration,
then = radiation. Am I wrong? (yes I know, loss too sometimes).

Does swinging a battery around produce radiation?

You say: "This reflection is a function of a severe mismatch between
two poor
conductors. You don't need sea water to achieve the same thing"

What "two" conductors?

POOR conductors.

you know air not work as a "conductor" in this
analitic environment,

Right, it is a very poor conductor (and, yet, we still see lightning
conducting through it on a summer evening - all a matter of degree).

it would the same it there were empty vacuum,
reflecting medium properties are responsibles for earth reflections.

I suppose so.

"Mismatch" it is another magic word, improper of you indeed my
friend!, not an explanation :)

Magic happens.

Classic EM radiation (or the same "re-irradiation") it sometimes
explained due accelarating charges, and YES, I agree with you,
certainly "you do not need sea water to achieve the same thing", you
can do it with any other vibrating charge, sea water charges it is
only one possibility, conductors, soil substances are other familiar
things capable to do it.

So then, classic EM radiation is pretty common, and has lost its
magic.

We know waves are reflected to ionosphere by those mediums, we can
explain that reflections with incident electromagnetic fields and
earth surface induced currents; however, "current" not implies here
free electrons traveling miles inside a conductor, we have a "current"
with any little induced movement on a charge and if this movemente is
not constant we have acceleration then = EM radiation, what other
classical process could explain the EM earth reflection? I do not
know.

Mismatch.

However I am not supporting practical liquid antennas here, I have not
made the experience and I have not theoretical enough knowledge
neither to prove or refute the hipotesis without much more working, I
only have some pointers to think over about it.

Ever hear a flame speaker? No magnets, no cone, just a flame and an
amplifier feeding two probes and *sound* comes out. No one builds
them either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 12 sep, 22:17, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:30:04 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hello dear Richard, how are you? I hope very well with yours:

Mylar conductive ballon replacement it is not a valid refutation for
the hipotesis analized, that antenna was only a "test antenna", any
liquid antenna can be replaced by a metalic antenna...! what prove
that?

Hi Miguel,

What does it prove? *What does water prove? *That it is a poor
replacement? *Yes.

I do not know lens dielectric antennas, I learnt radiation it due
accelerating charges,

That repeated epithet is rather too simple. *An electron is always
accelerating. *A circular orbit guarantees that.

electrons are charges, free ions also, non free
dielectric charges (E field induced dipoles) too; alternating electric
field applied to them produce movement on them, then acceleration,
then = radiation. Am I wrong? (yes I know, loss too sometimes).

Does swinging a battery around produce radiation?

You say: "This reflection is a function of a severe mismatch between
two poor
conductors. *You don't need sea water to achieve the same thing"

What "two" conductors?

POOR conductors.

you know air not work as a "conductor" in this
analitic environment,

Right, it is a very poor conductor (and, yet, we still see lightning
conducting through it on a summer evening - all a matter of degree).

it would the same it there were empty vacuum,
reflecting medium properties are responsibles for earth reflections.

I suppose so.

"Mismatch" it is another magic word, improper of you indeed my
friend!, not an explanation :)

Magic happens.

Classic EM radiation (or the same "re-irradiation") it sometimes
explained due accelarating charges, and YES, I agree with you,
certainly "you do not need sea water to achieve the same thing", you
can do it with any other vibrating charge, sea water charges it is
only one possibility, conductors, soil substances are other familiar
things capable to do it.

So then, classic EM radiation is pretty common, and has lost its
magic.

We know waves are reflected to ionosphere by those mediums, we can
explain that reflections with incident electromagnetic fields and
earth surface induced currents; however, "current" not implies here
free electrons traveling miles inside a conductor, we have a "current"
with any little induced movement on a charge and if this movemente is
not constant we have acceleration then = EM radiation, what other
classical process could explain the EM earth reflection? I do not
know.

Mismatch.

However I am not supporting practical liquid antennas here, I have not
made the experience and I have not theoretical enough knowledge
neither to prove or refute the hipotesis without much more working, I
only have some pointers to think over about it.

Ever hear a flame speaker? *No magnets, no cone, just a flame and an
amplifier feeding two probes and *sound* comes out. *No one builds
them either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

How easy it is for you, eh? some day I will catch you in
spanish... :)

Well, it is funny discuss some things with you. (Sorry, I don know how
properly quoting with Google, let me use for your sentences).
.........
Is not that IEEE paper what you called "the Workbench", have done your
duties in "The Bench" to refute that paper? :D
......
What does it prove? What does water prove? That it is a poor
replacement? Yes

Certainly "a wooden leg it is a poor replacement for the original
one" (Capt. Hooke dixit), but it is better than no leg at all when you
do not have money to pay "the million dollar man leg". Science deals
with possibilities not with Harvard economists efficientist laws. We,
carbonous beings have made of electrolites, open your ham mind, what
was about spirit of "to boldly go where no man has gone before"?
........
That repeated epithet is rather too simple. An electron is always
accelerating. A circular orbit guarantees that.

Time ago you have troubles with this item, until today do you not
believes Bohr postulates was intended for atomic orbitals?, do you
have forgotten ciclotron radiation?, I talked to you about this
curious habit of emmiting waves of circular accelerated charges when
we are young.
........
Does swinging a battery around produce radiation?

Do you believe?
.......
Air a POOR conductor of EM? Oh no! you are not my Clarke, this
newsgroup has been infiltered by etherians. They have hi jacked my old
newsgroup friend...! (electronic ether, where I read that, before?)
......
PSE explain me MISMATCH. (I bet that "mismatch" in some point will
ends up in Maxwell's Faraday and generalized Ampere law).

73 (so much english for a day to me)

Miguel Ghezzi

"lu6etj" wrote
...
.......
Air a POOR conductor of EM? Oh no! you are not my Clarke, this
newsgroup has been infiltered by etherians. They have hi jacked my old
newsgroup friend...! (electronic ether, where I read that, before?)

Now everywhere is the plazma ether. Even in the seewater:
http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~trumpf...rmittivity.pdf
S*

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