|
Mercury as an antenna?
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! =----- |
"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 Yes, of course, but make mine copper, please. Material Resistivity r(ohm m) Silver 1.59 Copper 1.68 Aluminum 2.65 Tungsten 5.6 Iron 9.71 Platinum 10.6 Lead 22 Mercury 98 Incidentally, Keith Monk used to make a tone arm with mercury contacts. (For those of you who don't recognize the term "tone arm" it was a device used in the playing of "records".) 73 H. NQ5H |
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 OK Cecil I'll bite. Yep! [I think there may be a Troll here :-) ] Mercury is a metal, albeit a dangerous one. It has a resistivity about 55 times that of copper. To a first approximation it's thermal coefficients are within a factor of 2 or less. It's location in the electrochemical series indicates that the relative potential between copper and mercury of -0.4546 volts would be subject to corrosive effects. Coupling RF to the column would require indirect coupling such as inductive. Why in Heaven would you or anyone want to do it? [I think there may be a Troll here :-) ] Deacon Dave Glass is an insulator and has dielectric properties. My conclusion: Yep! But it would have much higher losses than copper |
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:33:40 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote: Could a column of mercury inside a tube of glass be used as an antenna? OK Cecil I'll bite. Yep! [I think there may be a Troll here :-) ] Bite? SHF antenna arrays in a set of fillings? |
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? Sure, I don't see why not. You'd have to put up with a bit of tuning drift, as the resonant frequency would drop in hot weather or after you'd had your legal-maximum CW station running for a while :-) There was a running gag over in rec.audio.high-end a few years ago, about the ultimate speaker cables: mercury-filled surgical rubber tubing. Expensive, trouble-prone, toxic, and prone to cause unexpected visits from the hazmat team. Be the first on your block! -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:39:27 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:33:40 GMT, Dave Shrader wrote: Could a column of mercury inside a tube of glass be used as an antenna? OK Cecil I'll bite. Yep! [I think there may be a Troll here :-) ] Bite? SHF antenna arrays in a set of fillings? Think of how easily the antenna length could be adjusted. An intriguing idea, but the health hazards of working with Hg would be significant. Also, overheating the mercury column would be really bad, and with the higher resistivity, and difficulties in cooling the mercury, much more likely. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
When I was a dumb kid in the 50s we used to go into the garbage of those
hard of hearing and get their discarded hearing aid batteries to salvage the mercury. We got quite a bit and used it to make dimes real shiny and let the little balls roll around in our palms.. Several years ago I started to wonder what this might have done to me and I did some checking. Several dentists and a PhD metallurgist all said that the metal mercury is not toxic and is not absorbed but the salts of it are. In dental fillings it's amalgamated with silver. Just think how many kids played witth the stuff and how may dentists have handled and spilled it. When it is improperly disposed it can react with other chemicals and result in toxic compounds or salts and when these get into the water system fish apparently eat whatever feeds on the salts and concentrate it. From the antenna standpoint I can envision a tall thin tube where mercury is pushed up to the right level for resonance but it looks like I squared R losses will be counterproductive. 73 Hank WD5JFR "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! =----- |
my teeth hurt, what about florescent lights?, they all have a little of
mercury in them, they just get thrown in the dump. I won't bring up the 10 pounds of lead in the monitor you're looking at that lowers the amount of x-rays produced, and the first color TVs produced were xray hazards at 15 feet, now I'm getting a headache. "Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message om... When I was a dumb kid in the 50s we used to go into the garbage of those hard of hearing and get their discarded hearing aid batteries to salvage the mercury. We got quite a bit and used it to make dimes real shiny and let the little balls roll around in our palms.. Several years ago I started to wonder what this might have done to me and I did some checking. Several dentists and a PhD metallurgist all said that the metal mercury is not toxic and is not absorbed but the salts of it are. In dental fillings it's amalgamated with silver. Just think how many kids played witth the stuff and how may dentists have handled and spilled it. When it is improperly disposed it can react with other chemicals and result in toxic compounds or salts and when these get into the water system fish apparently eat whatever feeds on the salts and concentrate it. From the antenna standpoint I can envision a tall thin tube where mercury is pushed up to the right level for resonance but it looks like I squared R losses will be counterproductive. 73 Hank WD5JFR "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! =----- |
Dave Shrader wrote:
Mercury is a metal, albeit a dangerous one. It has a resistivity about 55 times that of copper. Why in Heaven would you or anyone want to do it? [I think there may be a Troll here :-) ] No troll, just a wild hair. I got to thinking of using mercury as the conducting medium for an RF antenna switch and then wondered if mercury could replace the upper part of a whip where there is low current and high voltage. The mercury changing length in a thermometer triggered these unthinkable thoughts. Imagine changing the current through a resistor in order to tune an antenna by varying the mercury level. -- 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! =----- |
Why in Heaven would you or anyone want to do it? [I think there may be a Troll here :-) ] Temperature compensating antenna length for those extra fussy antenna people? -- Irv Finkleman, Grampa/Ex-Navy/Old Fart/Ham Radio VE6BP Calgary, Alberta, Canada |
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! =----- |
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 |
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 |
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:52:56 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:
Think of how easily the antenna length could be adjusted. Hi Gary, I have four high accuracy laboratory thermometers one of which is 6" from this keyboard (ambient 18.4° C) with a range of -1° to 51° C over a length of roughly 16 inches. I've built precision heaters and designed using TEMs; nothing is easy about controlling heat. - It's a stupid idea - 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:47:52 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote: Several dentists and a PhD metallurgist all said that the metal mercury is not toxic and is not absorbed but the salts of it are. Hi Henry, You may as well had said several fools - especially the metallurgist passing as a toxicologist. The Dental practice is one of the single highest pollution hot spots of industry and acids in saliva are known to leach Mercury. There is NO MINIMUM EXPOSURE LEVEL to Mercury. No matter how little, it has some debilitating effect that is measurable. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Cecil Moore wrote:
No troll, just a wild hair. I got to thinking of using mercury as the conducting medium for an RF antenna switch and then wondered if mercury could replace the upper part of a whip where there is low current and high voltage. The mercury changing length in a thermometer triggered these unthinkable thoughts. Imagine changing the current through a resistor in order to tune an antenna by varying the mercury level. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP Had the same wild hair once. One problem is that changing the length through temperature requires a thin column of mercury in a stiff container; probably not ideal for an antenna. I came up with a bunch of other practical issues that I'm sure will all get posted here in time. The best use of mercury in antennas is to go down to the creek and gather gold with it. Sell the gold and buy an antenna. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:47:52 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote: When I was a dumb kid in the 50s we used to go into the garbage of those hard of hearing and get their discarded hearing aid batteries to salvage the mercury. Hi Henry, Another point of toxicity. Because the nuclear "Boomers" contained a closed loop environmental system, ALL such batteries were banned from the boat irrespective of their need in ANY equipment. We had to make do with substitutes and jury rig our own holders or means to provide a voltage for key equipment that would work fine on surface craft. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:47:52 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik" wrote: Several dentists and a PhD metallurgist all said that the metal mercury is not toxic and is not absorbed but the salts of it are. Hi Henry, You may as well had said several fools - especially the metallurgist passing as a toxicologist. The Dental practice is one of the single highest pollution hot spots of industry and acids in saliva are known to leach Mercury. There is NO MINIMUM EXPOSURE LEVEL to Mercury. No matter how little, it has some debilitating effect that is measurable. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Utter nonsense. Ever hear "The poison is in the dose"? There is some amount of every element in your body, including mercury, plutonium, arsenic and anything else you care to name. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:47:52 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik" wrote: When I was a dumb kid in the 50s we used to go into the garbage of those hard of hearing and get their discarded hearing aid batteries to salvage the mercury. Hi Henry, Another point of toxicity. Because the nuclear "Boomers" contained a closed loop environmental system, ALL such batteries were banned from the boat irrespective of their need in ANY equipment. We had to make do with substitutes and jury rig our own holders or means to provide a voltage for key equipment that would work fine on surface craft. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC The key here is "closed environment", which means crap accumulates. A lot of things are banned on subs because it is easier to ban them than it is to monitor them for for safe levels and then clean the whole damn sub when a level gets too high. None of this means you should get your panties in a wad because there is a mercury wetted relay in the house. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
|
|
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:03:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote: A lot of things are banned on subs because Hi Jim, I've been in charge of EVERY piece of electronic equipment located on a Boomer or Fast Attack - Mercury is not a "lot of things." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Well, dooh... So are you saying there are no restrictions on ANY materials used in or brought aboard a sub other than those containing mercury? -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:52:22 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Utter nonsense. Hi Jim, I've performed work with Battelle Centers for Public Health Research & Evaluation and this very matter has been studied to record and verify every statement I've offered. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You said: "There is NO MINIMUM EXPOSURE LEVEL to Mercury. No matter how little, it has some debilitating effect that is measurable." What is the "debilitating effect that is measurable" of exposure to 1 atom of mercury? How about 2 atoms of mercury? Three? According to the the ATSDR: "The EPA has set a limit of 2 parts of mercury per billion parts of drinking water (2 ppb). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set limits of 0.1 milligram of organic mercury per cubic meter of workplace air (0.1 mg/m?) and 0.05 mg/m? of metallic mercury vapor for 8-hour shifts and 40-hour work weeks." Looks to me like there are at least three entities other than Battelle Centers for Public Health Research & Evaluation that found minimum levels. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:52:22 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Utter nonsense. Hi Jim, I've performed work with Battelle Centers for Public Health Research & Evaluation and this very matter has been studied to record and verify every statement I've offered. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Well, I used to play with blobs of mercury a lot when I was a kid and it has never eeefffffecttted (snort)mmmmeee a (slobber) biiiittt. |
JJ wrote:
Well, I used to play with blobs of mercury a lot when I was a kid and it has never eeefffffecttted (snort)mmmmeee a (slobber) biiiittt. When I was a kid, my denist used to squeeze the mercury out of the fillings with a cloth, and just let the liquid mercury fall all over everything. He said it had been "passivated" or something like that and thus rendered inert and harmless. -- 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 Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:08:27 +0000 (UTC),
wrote: Well, dooh... So are you saying there are no restrictions on ANY materials used in or brought aboard a sub other than those containing mercury? Hi Jim, Name another. I can think of many, but they are trivial compared to mercury which is toxic everywhere. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
SNIP Another point of toxicity. Because the nuclear "Boomers" contained a closed loop environmental system, ALL such batteries were banned from the boat irrespective of their need in ANY equipment. We had to make do with substitutes and jury rig our own holders or means to provide a voltage for key equipment that would work fine on surface craft. SNIP As an Aerospace Design Engineer [1964 - 1986] and Major Military Systems Chief Engineer [1986 - 1992], MERCURY was/is a prohibited material in design. Any 'only solution' conditions had to be explicitly approved by higher authority than the PCO [Program Contracting Officer]. This generally was understood as SPO [Systems Program Officer ... Rank 2 stars or higher]. |
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:52:56 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote: Think of how easily the antenna length could be adjusted. Hi Gary, I have four high accuracy laboratory thermometers one of which is 6" from this keyboard (ambient 18.4° C) with a range of -1° to 51° C over a length of roughly 16 inches. I've built precision heaters and designed using TEMs; nothing is easy about controlling heat. - It's a stupid idea - True, but he didn't specify just how...You assumed... Maybe he ment by a pump. That's what I thought of. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Dave Shrader wrote: Mercury is a metal, albeit a dangerous one. It has a resistivity about 55 times that of copper. Why in Heaven would you or anyone want to do it? [I think there may be a Troll here :-) ] No troll, just a wild hair. I got to thinking of using mercury as the conducting medium for an RF antenna switch and then wondered if mercury could replace the upper part of a whip where there is low current and high voltage. The mercury changing length in a thermometer triggered these unthinkable thoughts. Imagine changing the current through a resistor in order to tune an antenna by varying the mercury level. No assumption here. I agree that this would be VERY difficult, although the "upper part" sounds feasable. Just replace the screwdriver motor & mechanism with a pump... -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Dave Platt" wrote in message ... ...a bunch of stuff, including this: , toxic, I resent this. I played with the stuff as a kid and there is absolutely no adverse side eff..ffe..ffe..ffe ects at..t..t.. all. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
"Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message om... When I was a dumb kid in the 50s we used to go into the garbage of those hard of hearing and get their discarded hearing aid batteries to salvage the mercury. We got quite a bit and used it to make dimes real shiny and let the little balls roll around in our palms.. Several years ago I started to wonder what this might have done to me and I did some checking. Several dentists and a PhD metallurgist all said that the metal mercury is not toxic and is not absorbed but the salts of it are. It's my understanding it is the vapor which is a problem...inhale. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... my teeth hurt, what about florescent lights?, they all have a little of mercury in them, they just get thrown in the dump. If the guy sees them around here, you get it back. Some areas are already savvy. I won't bring up the 10 pounds of lead in the monitor you're looking at There is a major push to eliminate lead in electronics. The solder is 20-30 degrees hotter. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
HEY! S..s..s..sombody else d.d.d.does this t.t.t.too! ! !
-- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. "JJ" wrote in message ... Richard Clark wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:52:22 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Utter nonsense. Hi Jim, I've performed work with Battelle Centers for Public Health Research & Evaluation and this very matter has been studied to record and verify every statement I've offered. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Well, I used to play with blobs of mercury a lot when I was a kid and it has never eeefffffecttted (snort)mmmmeee a (slobber) biiiittt. |
wrote in message ... Richard Clark wrote: .... mercury wetted (reed) relay in the house. Can you say that five times FAST? |
wrote in message ... Richard Clark wrote: .... ...mercury wetted (reed) relay ... Can you say that five times FAST ? |
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! =----- |
[snip]
Looks to me like there are at least three entities other than Battelle Centers for Public Health Research & Evaluation that found minimum levels. -- Jim Pennino Mercury is used in several drugs and biologic products, including over the counter nasal sprays. http://www.fda.gov/cder/fdama/mercury300.htm Frank Dresser |
Why not use salt water. Anything will work.
Loss resistance would not be too bad because skin depth increases with conductor resistivity relative to copper. |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com