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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

"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*