Cecil,

No, it won't work.

Mercury, being a liquid at normal temperatures, is subject to
hydrodynamic wave action. The RF couples into the hydrodynamic modes,
and the resulting interference energy waves cause cancellation of the
antiglare properties at the ends of the tube. The RF then leaks out and
does not launch into the desired radio waves.

Of course the mercury has high local proton density, so it has been
claimed that even small amounts of proton decay can negate the RF to
hydrodynamic coupling, thereby allowing the essential glare properties
to be maintained.

8-)

73,
Gene, W4SZ



Cecil Moore wrote:
Forget about the feasibility of this question for the moment.
Could a column of mercury inside a tube of glass be used as an
antenna?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:56:34 GMT, Gene Fuller Wrote :
Cecil,

No, it won't work.

Mercury, being a liquid at normal temperatures, is subject to
hydrodynamic wave action. The RF couples into the hydrodynamic modes,
and the resulting interference energy waves cause cancellation of the
antiglare properties at the ends of the tube. The RF then leaks out and
does not launch into the desired radio waves.

Of course the mercury has high local proton density, so it has been
claimed that even small amounts of proton decay can negate the RF to
hydrodynamic coupling, thereby allowing the essential glare properties
to be maintained.


Thanks for that. I just knew someone here would know for sure why it
would, or would not, work. And a simple explanation...



--

Humbug

Yikes !!

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil,

No, it won't work.

Mercury, being a liquid at normal temperatures, is subject to
hydrodynamic wave action. The RF couples into the hydrodynamic modes,
and the resulting interference energy waves cause cancellation of the
antiglare properties at the ends of the tube. The RF then leaks out and
does not launch into the desired radio waves.

Of course the mercury has high local proton density, so it has been
claimed that even small amounts of proton decay can negate the RF to
hydrodynamic coupling, thereby allowing the essential glare properties
to be maintained.

8-)

73,
Gene, W4SZ



Cecil Moore wrote:
Forget about the feasibility of this question for the moment.
Could a column of mercury inside a tube of glass be used as an
antenna?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil,

No, it won't work.

Mercury, being a liquid at normal temperatures, is subject to
hydrodynamic wave action. The RF couples into the hydrodynamic modes,
and the resulting interference energy waves cause cancellation of the
antiglare properties at the ends of the tube. The RF then leaks out and
does not launch into the desired radio waves.

Of course the mercury has high local proton density, so it has been
claimed that even small amounts of proton decay can negate the RF to
hydrodynamic coupling, thereby allowing the essential glare properties
to be maintained.

8-)

73,
Gene, W4SZ



Cecil Moore wrote:
Forget about the feasibility of this question for the moment.
Could a column of mercury inside a tube of glass be used as an
antenna?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


And if you believe that, I got some Desert Land in Aridzonia, and
a Bridge in Brookland, I'll sell you very cheap.

me

Cecil,

I asked this question about a year ago in some other group but the
posting went unanswered. Here's (more or less) what happened about 4
years ago during a conversation I had with a fellow who emigrated from
Russia many years ago. (It was a Sunday morning coffee shop ritual where
my wife and I would walk to a nearby Starbucks and meet with a small
group and discuss life, the universe, and everything as we overdosed on
several venti lattes with two extra espresso shots...) He once mentioned
a Russian text that detailed a mercury filled collinear antenna. It was
not completely filled with HG but had electrodes at the ends that
connected to cylinders of mercury. The article claimed wideband
performance and low noise. I asked him to sketch out the illustration
(bear in mind he's not a radio guy) and he sketched a collinear antenna.

|
|
|
|
---+-- feedpoints at +
[
---+--
|
|
|
|


This is the best (crude) ascii rendition of the sketch on the napkin,
but you get the picture.
He described the ends were electrodes protruding into a cylinder of HG.
I have yet to build the thing, but I do have a source of HG if I need
it. he claimed the book was a KGB cold war technical manual (obviously
written in russian) that he happened upon. I cannot testify to the
authenticity of the article nor its origin, but I reiterate, he was not
a radio literate fellow, but very well read in a broad field of mainly
business, economic and political topics. When he sketched the
illustration from memory, he even said "I'm not even sure it this is
right, but this is how I remember it..." and yet the scribble was accurate.

I still intend to try it out, but as usual, procrastination rules!!!

Pat

First thought is that it would heat up and detune itself. But this would
only be a problem on transmission and if the tube holding the mecury was
very thin. Conductivity of mercury is not so great compared to more
traditionally used metals but this should not be significant compared to the
radiation resistance of most antennas.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Forget about the feasibility of this question for the moment.
Could a column of mercury inside a tube of glass be used as an
antenna?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:04:22 GMT, "Jimmy"
wrote:
First thought is that it would heat up and detune itself. But this would
only be a problem on transmission and if the tube holding the mecury was
very thin. Conductivity of mercury is not so great compared to more
traditionally used metals but this should not be significant compared to the
radiation resistance of most antennas.

Hi Jimmy,

There are so many things wrong with this sentiment....

For one, this "tube of mercury" (that everyone takes for granted) to
be "tuned" by temperature would have an exceedingly small capillary
(my lab models are easily less than 1mm). Second, constructions of
wavelengths longer than for 2M are laughable (but then, so is the
entire concept). You could never support the column within it as it
would draw a vacuum in its collapse under the influence of gravity
(AKA barometer). Try to counter that with a thinner capillary
(anyone see where this is going in comparison to radiation
resistance?) and almost any heat expansion will rift the enclosure.

When do we get to depleted uranium elements that pre-ionize the æther
around them for "matching?" Will it escape the notice of many that we
would have to then abide by exposure rules from both the FCC and the
Nuclear Regulatory Agency? Or even the NIH?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Second, constructions of
wavelengths longer than for 2M are laughable ...

For a horizontal antenna???
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:41:28 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Second, constructions of
wavelengths longer than for 2M are laughable ...

For a horizontal antenna???
keep the chuckles comin'

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Second, constructions of
wavelengths longer than for 2M are laughable ...

For a horizontal antenna???

keep the chuckles comin'

You know I don't care for verticals. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----