The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


Hello Ian,

So the earth is necessary in your radio for the static reasons.
In my also:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_radio_tower

It seems to me that the same reasons were in Marconi times.

So I repeat my question:

""The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."(Marconi in 1909).

It is still true?
S*

Hello again Szczepan.

The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the static to bypass
my receiver. The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive
signals.

Gordon Bussey, in his book "Marconi's Atlantic Leap", discusses aerials used
by Marconi at Poldhu and St John's. He suspects they could well have been
capacitive or inductive (page 68). His book is published by Marconi
Communications.

I'd certainly prefer to use resonant aerials rather than have a mis-match
into a capacitive or inductive aerial. Sometimes the option to use a
resonant aerial is not available for me - such as on 160m.

I have a recollection that Marconi didn't (or couldn't) determine the
wavelength / frequency he was using. This makes it difficult for us to
accurately determine the match or mis-match of his aerials and radios. I
also recall debate in the 1970s as to whether the three dots really had been
received or had been imagined. There was conjecture that the aerials and
frequency used probably used would not propagate across the Atlantic
successfully.

Look at Baird. He demonstrated successful transmissions of moving pictures
via radio. It worked (and I believe it offered colour and 3D) but it soon
became obsolete due to the superior EMI system. Similarly, Marconi
demonstrated the practical use of wireless by keying a spark transmitter.
These days we no longer use spark (and we do a lot more with a radio signal
then key it on and off).

It also has to be remembered that Marconi brought a lot of existing
technology together to form wireless / radio. For example, according to
Wikipedia induction coils date back to Faraday and Ruhmkorff.

So, no, an earth is not necessary to transmit and receive radio signals.
Was Marconi wrong? Let's say that he could (and probably would) have done
better if he understood radio as we understand it to-day.

Kindest regards, Ian.

The earth
 

U¿ytkownik "Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


Hello Ian,

So the earth is necessary in your radio for the static reasons.
In my also:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_radio_tower

It seems to me that the same reasons were in Marconi times.

So I repeat my question:

""The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."(Marconi in 1909).

It is still true?
S*

Hello again Szczepan.

The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the static to
bypass my receiver. The earth connection is not necessary in order to
receive signals.

Gordon Bussey, in his book "Marconi's Atlantic Leap", discusses aerials
used by Marconi at Poldhu and St John's. He suspects they could well have
been capacitive or inductive (page 68). His book is published by Marconi
Communications.

I'd certainly prefer to use resonant aerials rather than have a mis-match
into a capacitive or inductive aerial. Sometimes the option to use a
resonant aerial is not available for me - such as on 160m.

I have a recollection that Marconi didn't (or couldn't) determine the
wavelength / frequency he was using. This makes it difficult for us to
accurately determine the match or mis-match of his aerials and radios. I
also recall debate in the 1970s as to whether the three dots really had
been received or had been imagined. There was conjecture that the aerials
and frequency used probably used would not propagate across the Atlantic
successfully.

Look at Baird. He demonstrated successful transmissions of moving pictures
via radio. It worked (and I believe it offered colour and 3D) but it soon
became obsolete due to the superior EMI system. Similarly, Marconi
demonstrated the practical use of wireless by keying a spark transmitter.
These days we no longer use spark (and we do a lot more with a radio
signal then key it on and off).

It also has to be remembered that Marconi brought a lot of existing
technology together to form wireless / radio. For example, according to
Wikipedia induction coils date back to Faraday and Ruhmkorff.

So, no, an earth is not necessary to transmit and receive radio signals.
Was Marconi wrong? Let's say that he could (and probably would) have done
better if he understood radio as we understand it to-day.

Kindest regards, Ian.

Hello Ian,

See the topic "Electron gun".

Each antenna liberate EM waves, heat and electrons.
At the end of the mast the voltage is dobled and the "field emmision" works.

The heat is no problem but the escaping of electrons is a problem.
Tesla discovered that the one end of the dipole must be earthed to have the
strong waves.

That should be obvious for you.

"The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive signals."

It is necessery to transmit and to receive.
You have it: "The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the
static to bypass
my receiver".

The liberating of electrons by a transmitter and absorbing by a receiver is
a by products of antennas.
The "earth connection" is a remedy.

Best Regards,
S*

The earth
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


See the topic "Electron gun".

Each antenna liberate EM waves, heat and electrons.

Electron guns have nothing to do with antennas.

At the end of the mast the voltage is dobled and the "field emmision" works.

The heat is no problem but the escaping of electrons is a problem.
Tesla discovered that the one end of the dipole must be earthed to have the
strong waves.

Electron guns have nothing to do with antennas.

That should be obvious for you.

You are a babbling idiot.

"The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive signals."

It is necessery to transmit and to receive.

No, it is not and it is proven by reality every day.

You are a babbling idiot.

You have it: "The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the
static to bypass
my receiver".

The liberating of electrons by a transmitter and absorbing by a receiver is
a by products of antennas.

There are no electrons "liberated" on a transmitting antenna unless
something is arcing and it is an abnormal condition.

There are no electron absorbed by a receiving antenna.

You are a babbling idiot.

The "earth connection" is a remedy.

Only if that "earth connection" is you 6 feet under it.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

U¿ytkownik "Ian" napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...
"The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive signals."

It is necessery to transmit and to receive.
You have it: "The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the
static to bypass my receiver".

The liberating of electrons by a transmitter and absorbing by a receiver
is a by products of antennas.
The "earth connection" is a remedy.

Best Regards,
S*



Hello again Szczepan.
I'm sorry to say that I didn't understand this part of your posting:
"Each antenna liberate EM waves, heat and electrons.At the end of the mast
the voltage is dobled and the "field emmision" works. The heat is no problem
but the escaping of electrons is a problem."
Do you mean "mast" or "aerial" when you say that the voltage is dobled
(sic)?

"Tesla discovered that the one end of the dipole must be earthed to have the
strong waves."
This is definitely something that I will not be doing. A dipole has low
impedance at the feed point and high impedance at its ends.

Best wishes, Ian.

The earth
 

On 4/12/2012 6:54 AM, Jeff wrote:

Accept the fact that earth connections are NOT required.

Jeff

He's a troll. Classic troll actually. Just ignore him. Better yet
PLONK him.

tom
K0TAR

The earth
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

U¿ytkownik "Ian" napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...
"The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive signals."

It is necessery to transmit and to receive.
You have it: "The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the
static to bypass my receiver".

The liberating of electrons by a transmitter and absorbing by a receiver
is a by products of antennas.
The "earth connection" is a remedy.

Best Regards,
S*



Hello again Szczepan.
I'm sorry to say that I didn't understand this part of your posting:
"Each antenna liberate EM waves, heat and electrons.At the end of the mast
the voltage is dobled and the "field emmision" works. The heat is no
problem but the escaping of electrons is a problem."
Do you mean "mast" or "aerial" when you say that the voltage is dobled
(sic)?

Not dobled but doubled (twice as large). It is desribed by Lodge: See Fig.2
: http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm
"The electrical waves produced by the oscillations at A traveled along the
wires and were reflected at the far ends. Lodge knew that the longer spark
at B3 was due to what he called the "recoil impulse" or "recoil kick" at the
end of the wires where the waves were reflected.[4] At spark gap B3 both the
incident wave and the reflected wave had their maximum values and were in
phase. This produced a voltage twice as large as the voltage at spark gap
A."

"Tesla discovered that the one end of the dipole must be earthed to have
the strong waves."
This is definitely something that I will not be doing. A dipole has low
impedance at the feed point and high impedance at its ends.

A dipole with one ene earthed becomes a monopole.
Hertz transmitter is a dipole. The Tesla's is a monopole.
Todays dipoles are simply the two monopoles.
Thanks this the waves are polarized.

But the question is if Marconi was right:"
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Best regards,
S*

The earth
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
But the question is if Marconi was right:"
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Best regards,
S*

The problem with you is that you will not take the correct answer
to that question, but you will keep asking it until someone incorrectly
answers that Marconi was right.

The earth
 

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
But the question is if Marconi was right:"
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Best regards,
S*

The problem with you is that you will not take the correct answer
to that question, but you will keep asking it until someone incorrectly
answers that Marconi was right.

Ian did it. He wrote:
"The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the static to bypass
my receiver. The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive
signals."

Tell as if a practical radio exists where the instruments are not connected
to earth/chassis."
I am not asking for what: to bypass or to receive/transmit.

S*

The earth
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

A dipole with one ene earthed becomes a monopole.

Yes, and the characteristics of monopoles is different than the
characteristics of dipoles.

Hertz transmitter is a dipole.

A Hertz transmitter is a transmitter, not an antenna.

A Hertz antenna is a dipole.

The Tesla's is a monopole.

The Tesla's what?

Todays dipoles are simply the two monopoles.

The characteristics of monopoles is different than the characteristics of
dipoles.

Thanks this the waves are polarized.

Polarization has nothing to do with whether an antenna is a monopole or a
dipole.

But the question is if Marconi was right:"

He wasn't right, he was wrong.

"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Marconi was wrong.

Best regards,

Shut up, you babbling, little idiot.

The earth
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Ian did it. He wrote:
"The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the static to bypass
my receiver. The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive
signals."

No, he did not.

You are just too stupid to understand what it is that Ian wrote.

Tell as if a practical radio exists where the instruments are not connected
to earth/chassis."

Meaningless gibberish.

I am not asking for what: to bypass or to receive/transmit.

More meaningless gibberish.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
But the question is if Marconi was right:"
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Best regards,
S*

The problem with you is that you will not take the correct answer
to that question, but you will keep asking it until someone incorrectly
answers that Marconi was right.

Ian did it. He wrote:
"The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the static to
bypass
my receiver. The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive
signals."

Tell as if a practical radio exists where the instruments are not
connected to earth/chassis."
I am not asking for what: to bypass or to receive/transmit.

S*
Hello Szczepan
No, I did not say that Marconi was correct. I did say that the earth
connection is not necessary in order to receive signals. I suspect that your
English is not as good as we think.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

"
Not dobled but doubled (twice as large). It is desribed by Lodge: See
Fig.2 : http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm
"The electrical waves produced by the oscillations at A traveled along the
wires and were reflected at the far ends. Lodge knew that the longer spark
at B3 was due to what he called the "recoil impulse" or "recoil kick" at
the end of the wires where the waves were reflected.[4] At spark gap B3
both the incident wave and the reflected wave had their maximum values and
were in phase. This produced a voltage twice as large as the voltage at
spark gap A."

"Tesla discovered that the one end of the dipole must be earthed to have
the strong waves."
This is definitely something that I will not be doing. A dipole has low
impedance at the feed point and high impedance at its ends.

A dipole with one ene earthed becomes a monopole.
Hertz transmitter is a dipole. The Tesla's is a monopole.
Todays dipoles are simply the two monopoles.
Thanks this the waves are polarized.

But the question is if Marconi was right:"
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Best regards,
S*


Hello again Szczepan .
You used the term "dobled". Was it a typing error on your part?
Are we discussing spark transmission and non-resonant aerials?

Regards, Ian.

The earth
 

wrote in message
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Ian did it. He wrote:
"The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the static to
bypass
my receiver. The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive
signals."

No, he did not.

You are just too stupid to understand what it is that Ian wrote.

Tell as if a practical radio exists where the instruments are not
connected
to earth/chassis."

Meaningless gibberish.

I am not asking for what: to bypass or to receive/transmit.

More meaningless gibberish.



Hello folks.

I have a suspicion that Szczepan's English is either not as good as it
appears or that he is using a web translation page.

Szczepan - do you hold an amateur radio licence, please?


Regards, Ian.

The earth
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
wrote in message
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Ian did it. He wrote:
"The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the static to
bypass
my receiver. The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive
signals."

No, he did not.

You are just too stupid to understand what it is that Ian wrote.

Tell as if a practical radio exists where the instruments are not
connected
to earth/chassis."

Meaningless gibberish.

I am not asking for what: to bypass or to receive/transmit.

More meaningless gibberish.

Hello folks.

I have a suspicion that Szczepan's English is either not as good as it
appears or that he is using a web translation page.


Szczepan - do you hold an amateur radio licence, please?

I have even never seen a transmitter.
For me it is a "black box".

I only want to know if the box is connected to the earth/chassis.

Your the first answer was Yes ("The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is
merely to get the static to bypass my receiver).
S*



Regards, Ian.

The earth
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
But the question is if Marconi was right:"
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless
telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Best regards,
S*

The problem with you is that you will not take the correct answer
to that question, but you will keep asking it until someone incorrectly
answers that Marconi was right.

Ian did it. He wrote:
"The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is merely to get the static to
bypass
my receiver. The earth connection is not necessary in order to receive
signals."

Tell as if a practical radio exists where the instruments are not
connected to earth/chassis."
I am not asking for what: to bypass or to receive/transmit.

S*
Hello Szczepan
No, I did not say that Marconi was correct. I did say that the earth
connection is not necessary in order to receive signals. I suspect that
your English is not as good as we think.

But you wrote that your radio have the earth/chassis.
S*

The earth
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

"
Not dobled but doubled (twice as large). It is desribed by Lodge: See
Fig.2 : http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm
"The electrical waves produced by the oscillations at A traveled along
the wires and were reflected at the far ends. Lodge knew that the longer
spark at B3 was due to what he called the "recoil impulse" or "recoil
kick" at the end of the wires where the waves were reflected.[4] At spark
gap B3 both the incident wave and the reflected wave had their maximum
values and were in phase. This produced a voltage twice as large as the
voltage at spark gap A."

"Tesla discovered that the one end of the dipole must be earthed to have
the strong waves."
This is definitely something that I will not be doing. A dipole has low
impedance at the feed point and high impedance at its ends.

A dipole with one ene earthed becomes a monopole.
Hertz transmitter is a dipole. The Tesla's is a monopole.
Todays dipoles are simply the two monopoles.
Thanks this the waves are polarized.

But the question is if Marconi was right:"
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Best regards,
S*


Hello again Szczepan .
You used the term "dobled". Was it a typing error on your part?

Yes.

Are we discussing spark transmission and non-resonant aerials?

The earth/chassis and the field electron emission..
S*

The earth
 

Uzytkownik "Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 15/04/2012 09:58, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

But you wrote that your radio have the earth/chassis.

The point that you are missing is that the earth connection has NOTHING
to do with transmitting or receiving a signal. If is merely there for
safety in the event of a lightening strike or build up or static.

So the radio have the earth/chassis.

Ian's equipment will work no differently is the earth connection is
disconnected. Marconi was WRONG!!!!

And what about your equipment?
Is the earth connection disconnected?
S*

The earth
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Are we discussing spark transmission and non-resonant aerials?

The earth/chassis and the field electron emission..
S*

Hey Szczepan,

Spark transmitters are not used anymore.
Try to find some more recent articles about transmitting.

Today we use nicely synthesized carrier waves that are fed to
antennas suitable for the frequency in use, not a noise generator
and transformer to high voltages connected to a random wire net.

Especially when that frequency is somewhat higher (much higer
than what Marconi and Tesla were transmitting on), there is no
need for en earth connection or even a chassis.
That is because an antenna is used that is balanced or has its
own counterpoise for the driven element.

A connection to earth would not be effective anyway, because
antennas used at higher frequencies are often several wavelengths
above the earth, and a wire used to connect to the earth would
not behave like a conductor at those frequencies.

We also operate our antennas well below the point where arcing
occurs, so we don't have to deal with electron emission.

So now please go off to a group that operates the century old
techniques that you seem to be discussing.
Maybe you can find a Tesla coil enthousiasts group where your
voice will be appreciated, although I think they are not using
sparkgaps anymore either.

The earth
 

Ian wrote:

Hello folks.

I have a suspicion that Szczepan's English is either not as good as it
appears or that he is using a web translation page.

That his English is horrible is a given, but since he has been doing
exactly the same thing for years now it should be a lot better than
it is.

He has been posting the same idiotic crap for years to the sci. groups
and getting the same responses.

He is incapable of comprehending that Tesla, Maxwell, Marconi, etc. did
NOT have a full understanding of RF over a hundred years ago.

He keeps posting the same idiotic questions, with references to century
old quotes, over and over no matter how many times he is answered.

Szczepan - do you hold an amateur radio licence, please?

No, he does not.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

Szczepan - do you hold an amateur radio licence, please?

I have even never seen a transmitter.
For me it is a "black box".

I only want to know if the box is connected to the earth/chassis.

Your the first answer was Yes ("The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is
merely to get the static to bypass my receiver).
S*

Hello Szczepan.
It seems that you totally misunderstood my answer.
A ground connection is NOT necessary in order to receive a signal.

You tell me that you have not seen a transmitter and regard it as a black
box. I recommend that you get a modern textbook on radio technology so that
you can understand how radios and aerials work.

Kindest regards, Ian.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

Hello Szczepan
No, I did not say that Marconi was correct. I did say that the earth
connection is not necessary in order to receive signals. I suspect that
your English is not as good as we think.

But you wrote that your radio have the earth/chassis.
S*


Hello again Szczepan. I rarely ever use the term "chassis" and I don't
remember mentioning an earth on a radio.

For clarification - radios can and do transmit and receive successfully
without any connection to earth, either the actual ground or to an
artificial earth.

Kindest regards, Ian.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
Are we discussing spark transmission and non-resonant aerials?

The earth/chassis and the field electron emission..
S*


Good afternoon Szczepan.
You didn't answer my question about aerials.
Are you discussing resonant or non-resonant aerials, please?

Kindest regards, Ian.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

A dipole with one ene earthed becomes a monopole.
Hertz transmitter is a dipole. The Tesla's is a monopole.
Todays dipoles are simply the two monopoles.
Thanks this the waves are polarized.

But the question is if Marconi was right:"
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Best regards,
S*
Hello Szczepan.
A dipole with one end earthed wouldn't be a monopole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna

Best wishes, Ian.

Well I am going to be unusually kind today, since it is Sunday and also because I am going to show some intelligence here. So everyone listen up - because I am only going to do this one time.

I am not going to fight over who invented radio, or the different types of modulation scheme's - since the days of spark gap transmitters.

I tried to post some relevant information - but it seemed to get lost in the jumble.

The bottom line is - 3rd world countries and places such as the Soviet Union and their sattelite countries does not understand how communications works - to the extent that people in the free world does - because when you live in a communist society you are told what to think and how to think and so you cannot think for yourself.

When the day comes when someone emancipates you and you are free and all of a sudden there is no one telling you how to think or what to say - your mind goes beserk and you just start thinking about things that no one has thought about in 50 years - because even a infant has to crawl before it can walk and those people are so far behind the times it will take them a certain period of time to readjust to the way the rest of the world operates and so we have to be kind to people who were not born and raised in the USA and thinks that they are the worlds leading source of all information and that everything published on the internet is factual.

The Sattelite one was the one that really got me to thinking.
There is nothing in outer space for the signals to bounce off of - so they travel millions of miles in just a couple of seconds and you have to wonder if there is some other form of intelligence on another planet several galaxies away that is monitoring our simple form of communications - and probably laughing at us for what we say and how we act and what we do.
Rock n roll music is probably the most entertaining of all the types of transmissions we make - because it doesn't make much sense when some rapper repeats the same thing over and over again and other musicians plays the same 3 chords over and over again and people pays millions of dollars to buy their albums and listen to them at concerts or that we would allow someone to play advertising over the radio and not turn it off or turn the dial to another frequency.

Or that some ham would be willing to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to buy a transceiver that does the same basic thing as a AM radio you can buy in any Walmart or Goodwill for a couple of bucks.

When you crank up the power, it allows the person on the other end to use a smaller antenna - hence the people who buys or builds the big towers and the big beam antenna's would think that their investment would allow them global communications on a daily basis - and still we have not gotten past the fact that all reliable communicatiosn is LOS - even 100 years later...

The OP wanted to debate the fact that some antenna's works best when we include some type of ground. Yes a good vertical transmitting antenna includes some type of ground to keep the signal from warming the clouds and being wasted.
A beam antenna does not have a physical ground, yet still works - maybe the ground reflections helps the signals to travel further.
But we all know that effective communications requires the antenna to be as high as possible.
Only once you get to what is it 38,000 miles one antenna will transmit to one hemisphere - or is it what ever part of the earth you can see and will transmit no further.
That is the point of diminishing returns.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/f...ection-12.html

http://www.keytelemetering.com/9600_Antenna.htm

The earth
 

Uzytkownik "Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Are we discussing spark transmission and non-resonant aerials?

The earth/chassis and the field electron emission..
S*

Hey Szczepan,

Spark transmitters are not used anymore.
Try to find some more recent articles about transmitting.

Today we use nicely synthesized carrier waves that are fed to
antennas suitable for the frequency in use, not a noise generator
and transformer to high voltages connected to a random wire net.

Especially when that frequency is somewhat higher (much higer
than what Marconi and Tesla were transmitting on), there is no
need for en earth connection or even a chassis.
That is because an antenna is used that is balanced or has its
own counterpoise for the driven element.

Counterpoise, chassis and the earth are the same.

A connection to earth would not be effective anyway, because
antennas used at higher frequencies are often several wavelengths
above the earth, and a wire used to connect to the earth would
not behave like a conductor at those frequencies.

We also operate our antennas well below the point where arcing
occurs, so we don't have to deal with electron emission.

The field electron emission take place at each electric field.

So now please go off to a group that operates the century old
techniques that you seem to be discussing.
Maybe you can find a Tesla coil enthousiasts group where your
voice will be appreciated, although I think they are not using
sparkgaps anymore either.

We are discussing "The earth/chassis/counterpoise and the field electron
emission."
S*

The earth
 

U¿ytkownik "Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

Szczepan - do you hold an amateur radio licence, please?

I have even never seen a transmitter.
For me it is a "black box".

I only want to know if the box is connected to the earth/chassis.

Your the first answer was Yes ("The "static to earth" in my HF aerial is
merely to get the static to bypass my receiver).
S*

Hello Szczepan.
It seems that you totally misunderstood my answer.
A ground connection is NOT necessary in order to receive a signal.

Is it necessary to "get the static to bypass my receiver".

You tell me that you have not seen a transmitter and regard it as a black
box. I recommend that you get a modern textbook on radio technology so
that you can understand how radios and aerials work.

For me is enough to know "Is it the ground/chassis/counterpoise necessary to
"get the static to bypass a transmitter/receiver".?
I hope that some of you know the answer.

I am not asking If "Does a ground connection is necessary in order to
receive a signal."

Best regards,
S*

The earth
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

Hello Szczepan
No, I did not say that Marconi was correct. I did say that the earth
connection is not necessary in order to receive signals. I suspect that
your English is not as good as we think.

But you wrote that your radio have the earth/chassis.
S*


Hello again Szczepan. I rarely ever use the term "chassis" and I don't
remember mentioning an earth on a radio.

For clarification - radios can and do transmit and receive successfully
without any connection to earth, either the actual ground or to an
artificial earth.

And what do you do with the static build up?
Best Regards,
S*

The earth
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

A dipole with one ene earthed becomes a monopole.
Hertz transmitter is a dipole. The Tesla's is a monopole.
Todays dipoles are simply the two monopoles.
Thanks this the waves are polarized.

But the question is if Marconi was right:"
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned, but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy
exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth."

Best regards,
S*
Hello Szczepan.
A dipole with one end earthed wouldn't be a monopole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di..._in_meters.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna

"One side of the antenna feedline is attached to the lower end of the
monopole, and the other side is attached to the ground plane, which is often
the Earth.

This contrasts with a dipole antennawhich consists of two identical rod
conductors, with the signal from the transmitter applied between the two
halves of the antenna.

Any comments?
Best Regards,
S*

The earth
 

"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 15/04/2012 10:33, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 15/04/2012 09:58, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

But you wrote that your radio have the earth/chassis.

The point that you are missing is that the earth connection has
NOTHING
to do with transmitting or receiving a signal. If is merely there for
safety in the event of a lightening strike or build up or static.

So the radio have the earth/chassis.

Ian's equipment will work no differently is the earth connection is
disconnected. Marconi was WRONG!!!!

And what about your equipment?
Is the earth connection disconnected?
S*



I have no earth connection, so it cannot be connected or disconnected.

Why than: "The ideal ground system forAM broadcasters comprises at least 120
buried copper or phosphor bronze radial wires at least one-quarter
wavelength long and a ground-screen in the immediate vicinity of the tower.
All the ground system components are bonded together, usually by welding,
brazing or using coin silversolder to help reduce corrosion". From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna

Tell them that they are WRONG.
S*

The earth
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"One side of the antenna feedline is attached to the lower end of the
monopole, and the other side is attached to the ground plane, which is often
the Earth.

This contrasts with a dipole antennawhich consists of two identical rod
conductors, with the signal from the transmitter applied between the two
halves of the antenna.

Any comments?
Best Regards,
S*

Now you have written it yourself! With a dipole antenna you do not
need an earth connection because the signal is applied between the
two halves of the antenna, not between earth and the antenna.

End of discussion.

The earth
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Why than: "The ideal ground system forAM broadcasters comprises at least 120
buried copper or phosphor bronze radial wires at least one-quarter
wavelength long and a ground-screen in the immediate vicinity of the tower.
All the ground system components are bonded together, usually by welding,
brazing or using coin silversolder to help reduce corrosion". From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna

Tell them that they are WRONG.
S*

It says "for AM broadcasters", not "for every transmitter".

Your conclusion that anything applying to a low frequency transmitter
for which it is impractical to build a balanced resonating antenna
applies to all transmitters in the universe is just wrong.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Is it necessary to "get the static to bypass my receiver".

Hello Szczepan.

No, it is not necessary to ge the static to bypass a receiver.


For me is enough to know "Is it the ground/chassis/counterpoise necessary
to "get the static to bypass a transmitter/receiver".?
I hope that some of you know the answer.

Same answer. It is not necessary ...

Kindest regards, Ian.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di..._in_meters.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna

"One side of the antenna feedline is attached to the lower end of the
monopole, and the other side is attached to the ground plane, which is
often the Earth.

This contrasts with a dipole antennawhich consists of two identical rod
conductors, with the signal from the transmitter applied between the two
halves of the antenna.

Any comments?
Best Regards,
S*

Hello Szczepan .
Dipole has two pieces of metal.
Monopole has one piece of metal.
Connecting a dipole to ground doesn't remove one piece of metal.

Best wishes, Ian.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

" For clarification - radios can and do transmit and receive
successfully
without any connection to earth, either the actual ground or to an
artificial earth.

And what do you do with the static build up?
Best Regards,
S*
Hello Szczepan.

Static build up doesn't always happen.

Regards, Ian.

The earth
 

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"One side of the antenna feedline is attached to the lower end of the
monopole, and the other side is attached to the ground plane, which is
often
the Earth.

This contrasts with a dipole antennawhich consists of two identical rod
conductors, with the signal from the transmitter applied between the two
halves of the antenna.

Any comments?
Best Regards,
S*

Now you have written it yourself! With a dipole antenna you do not
need an earth connection because the signal is applied between the
two halves of the antenna, not between earth and the antenna.

Real dipole needs:
"In the lower half of the mast, there was a vertical steel tube, attached to
the mast's outer structure with large insulators. This tube was grounded at
the bottom, and connected electrically to the mast structure by an
adjustable metal bar at 328 metres.[2] This technique allowed adjusting the
impedance of the mast for the transmitter and worked by applying a DC ground
at a point of low radiofrequency voltage, to conduct static charge to ground
without diminishing the radio energy. Static electrical charge can build up
to high values, even at times of no thunderstorm activity, when such tall
structures are insulated from ground. Use of this technique provides better
lightning protection than using just a spark gap at the mast feed, as is
standard at most mast radiators insulated against ground."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_radio_tower

End of discussion.
S*

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
Why than: "The ideal ground system forAM broadcasters comprises at least
120
buried copper or phosphor bronze radial wires at least one-quarter
wavelength long and a ground-screen in the immediate vicinity of the
tower. All the ground system components are bonded together, usually by
welding, brazing or using coin silversolder to help reduce corrosion".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna

Tell them that they are WRONG.
S*

Hello again Szczepan
The answer to your question is in that Wikipedia article. Read the
"Radiation Pattern" paragraph.

If you can get ham radio textbooks in your country then you'd understand a
lot better by reading a textbook on aerials.
Try http://www.rsgbshop.org/acatalog/Onl...tennas_37.html
and www.arrl.org/shop/Antennas/

I haven't seen an answer from you to my question which asked:
"Are you discussing resonant or non-resonant aerials, please?"

Best wishes, Ian.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Real dipole needs:
"In the lower half of the mast, there was a vertical steel tube, attached
to the mast's outer structure with large insulators. This tube was
grounded at the bottom, and connected electrically to the mast structure
by an adjustable metal bar at 328 metres.[2] This technique allowed
adjusting the impedance of the mast for the transmitter and worked by
applying a DC ground at a point of low radiofrequency voltage, to conduct
static charge to ground without diminishing the radio energy. Static
electrical charge can build up to high values, even at times of no
thunderstorm activity, when such tall structures are insulated from
ground. Use of this technique provides better lightning protection than
using just a spark gap at the mast feed, as is standard at most mast
radiators insulated against ground."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_radio_tower

End of discussion.
S*
Good evening Szczepan.

The Warsaw radio mast was not a dipole.

May I remind you that I would appreciate an answer to my question "Are you
discussing resonant or non-resonant aerials, please?". It would help to
clarify what you have in mind,

Kindest regards;
have a good evening,
Ian.

The earth
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"One side of the antenna feedline is attached to the lower end of the
monopole, and the other side is attached to the ground plane, which is
often
the Earth.

This contrasts with a dipole antennawhich consists of two identical rod
conductors, with the signal from the transmitter applied between the two
halves of the antenna.

Any comments?
Best Regards,
S*

Now you have written it yourself! With a dipole antenna you do not
need an earth connection because the signal is applied between the
two halves of the antenna, not between earth and the antenna.

Real dipole needs:

That is not a dipole. It is a vertical half-wave radiator. It is
not center fed like you discussed above.

The earth
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Why than: "The ideal ground system forAM broadcasters comprises at least 120
buried copper or phosphor bronze radial wires at least one-quarter
wavelength long and a ground-screen in the immediate vicinity of the tower.
All the ground system components are bonded together, usually by welding,
brazing or using coin silversolder to help reduce corrosion". From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna

Because they are talking specifically about a vertical, monopole antenna
mounted on the ground and fed at the base end.

They are NOT talking about antennas in general.

They are NOT talking about transmitters.

Tell them that they are WRONG.
S*

They are not wrong, you are just too stupid to understand what they ARE
talking about.

The earth
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .


"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 15/04/2012 10:33, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 15/04/2012 09:58, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

But you wrote that your radio have the earth/chassis.

The point that you are missing is that the earth connection has
NOTHING
to do with transmitting or receiving a signal. If is merely there for
safety in the event of a lightening strike or build up or static.

So the radio have the earth/chassis.

Ian's equipment will work no differently is the earth connection is
disconnected. Marconi was WRONG!!!!

And what about your equipment?
Is the earth connection disconnected?
S*



I have no earth connection, so it cannot be connected or disconnected.

# Why than: "The ideal ground system forAM broadcasters comprises at least
120
# buried copper or phosphor bronze radial wires at least one-quarter
# wavelength long and a ground-screen in the immediate vicinity of the
tower.
# All the ground system components are bonded together, usually by welding,
# brazing or using coin silversolder to help reduce corrosion". From:
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopole_antenna
#
# Tell them that they are WRONG.
# S*

Looks like you are either a troll or being deliberately dense. Reminds me
of the mechanical engineer guy on the group a while back who was making
fantastic claims for miniscule antennas.

At any rate:
PLONK ..._._