"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