![]() |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
It is not true. You know that. Marconi was wrong. Most of the antennas in use today were not invented until after Marconi. Marconi would be totally baffled if he were shown a helical, yagi or slot antenna. |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"NM5K" napisal w wiadomosci ... Fer instance, I'm sitting out in the woods up at my recreational living center.. I have dipoles strung up in the trees which I leave there, and I roll the rg-58 coax up and hang it on a tree branch when I leave. Not a ground wire, or ground connection in sight.. And works perfectly well. Of course, you can't really see the wires here, but "S" can trust me, there is no ground connection. The radio is sitting on that stone bench, and the only connections are 12v to my car battery, Where is the car battery? On the stone bench or in the car? S* It makes no difference. |
The earth
Ian wrote:
I feel it is awkward to say that Marconi was wrong even though we now know this is the case. Personally, I'd say that Marconi's opinion that "no practical system of wireless telegraphy exists where the instruments are not connected to earth" obviously related to his own use of wireless. As I understand it, Marconi's aerials were not resonant at the frequency he was using. They would therefore be a mis-match to his radios and this situation was alleviated by using connections to earth. Little of the technology in use today was known in Marconi's time. Marconi knew nothing of resonance, impedance, or electromagnetic field theory; it all came after his time. Marconi would have been totally baffled if shown a helical, slot, yagi, or any number of antennas invented after his time in common use today. The only reference antenna Marconi had was a wire of some sort fed against ground. For that particular type of antenna, Marconi was correct, but his statement is NOT correct for antennas in general. |
The earth
wrote in message
... Ian wrote: Little of the technology in use today was known in Marconi's time. Marconi knew nothing of resonance, impedance, or electromagnetic field theory; it all came after his time. Marconi would have been totally baffled if shown a helical, slot, yagi, or any number of antennas invented after his time in common use today. The only reference antenna Marconi had was a wire of some sort fed against ground. For that particular type of antenna, Marconi was correct, but his statement is NOT correct for antennas in general. Hello again. I bet that Marconi would have been very wiling to learn about new theory and technology ... unlike some people. Regards, Ian. |
The earth
Ian wrote:
wrote in message ... Ian wrote: Little of the technology in use today was known in Marconi's time. Marconi knew nothing of resonance, impedance, or electromagnetic field theory; it all came after his time. Marconi would have been totally baffled if shown a helical, slot, yagi, or any number of antennas invented after his time in common use today. The only reference antenna Marconi had was a wire of some sort fed against ground. For that particular type of antenna, Marconi was correct, but his statement is NOT correct for antennas in general. Hello again. I bet that Marconi would have been very wiling to learn about new theory and technology ... unlike some people. Regards, Ian. I would also bet Marconi would not stubornly cling to something said a 100 years before his time as being absolutely correct. |
The earth
wrote in message ... Ian wrote: wrote in message ... Ian wrote: Little of the technology in use today was known in Marconi's time. Marconi knew nothing of resonance, impedance, or electromagnetic field theory; it all came after his time. Marconi would have been totally baffled if shown a helical, slot, yagi, or any number of antennas invented after his time in common use today. The only reference antenna Marconi had was a wire of some sort fed against ground. For that particular type of antenna, Marconi was correct, but his statement is NOT correct for antennas in general. Hello again. I bet that Marconi would have been very wiling to learn about new theory and technology ... unlike some people. Regards, Ian. # I would also bet Marconi would not stubornly cling to something said a 100 # years before his time as being absolutely correct. IMHO the guy is just jerking your chain by deliberately being dense. The questions are nonsensical and remind me of that old "Eliza" software that would take your words and run you around in endless circles. |
The earth
On 4/17/2012 3:01 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci ... Fer instance, I'm sitting out in the woods up at my recreational living center.. I have dipoles strung up in the trees which I leave there, and I roll the rg-58 coax up and hang it on a tree branch when I leave. Not a ground wire, or ground connection in sight.. And works perfectly well. Of course, you can't really see the wires here, but "S" can trust me, there is no ground connection. The radio is sitting on that stone bench, and the only connections are 12v to my car battery, Where is the car battery? On the stone bench or in the car? S* It doesn't matter. 12v is 12v.. But to answer your question, I open the hood of the car, and attach the wires to the battery while it's in the car. That way I can start the car to charge the battery every once in a while. But the power source of the radio has nothing whatsoever to do with the antenna. I could place the battery anywhere and the operation would be the same. The car is not part of the antenna. The *complete* antenna is suspended between a couple of oak trees well over my head. The antenna is decoupled from the feed line. And there are no connections to ground. One could consider the negative power lead as connecting to a "chassis", IE: the body of the car, but that is a DC connection, not RF. Moving the battery would make no difference whatsoever in the performance of the antenna. |
The earth
"Wayne" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... IMHO the guy is just jerking your chain by deliberately being dense. The questions are nonsensical and remind me of that old "Eliza" software that would take your words and run you around in endless circles. Hello Wayne. Your humble opinion is correct. The argument has indeed gone in circles. Sometimes I wonder if he's using a translation engine to handle English. Regards, Ian. |
The earth
wrote in message
... Hello again. I bet that Marconi would have been very wiling to learn about new theory and technology ... unlike some people. Regards, Ian. I would also bet Marconi would not stubornly cling to something said a 100 years before his time as being absolutely correct. Hello again. I agree. I'm sure that Marconi was bright enough to investigate new ideas. I was at a social event with his widow and daughter a long time ago but there wasn't time to ask her about him. Regards, Ian. |
The earth
On 4/17/2012 10:47 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci ... Szczepan wrote: At transmitting you have the deficit and at receiving the excess. Without the earth the static build up and radio stop working. How would you know that when you don't even have a transmitter? But my "friend" Marconi had a lot. He wrote: "but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy exists where the instruments are not connected to earth." You will transmit just fine if you have the ground/chassis/counterpoise. S* And without it, fine as well. It is not true. You know that. S* I guess all the people I talk to using that portable rig are just a figment of my imagination? And likewise here at the house where most of my systems are ungrounded.. It's actually quite astounding.. I've worked about 29 zillion people using various ungrounded antenna systems that don't work. How did I pull off such a feat? Did I scream real loud? Did I hire R. Lee Ermey to scream for me? He's pretty good at it.. Maybe I built a big fire behind the radio, and sent smoke signals.. I suppose that could be a viable explanation, being as that land was Indian Territory until a couple of years before Marconi made that statement. :\ I don't own any war drums, so we would have to rule those out.. :| Maybe I pass notes around the country on the backs of tarantulas.. They usually don't mind as long as I don't use a hat pin to attach the notes to their backs. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/oct17-4.jpg |
The earth
"NM5K" wrote in message ... On 4/17/2012 10:47 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote: napisal w wiadomosci ... Szczepan wrote: At transmitting you have the deficit and at receiving the excess. Without the earth the static build up and radio stop working. How would you know that when you don't even have a transmitter? But my "friend" Marconi had a lot. He wrote: "but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy exists where the instruments are not connected to earth." You will transmit just fine if you have the ground/chassis/counterpoise. S* And without it, fine as well. It is not true. You know that. S* # I guess all the people I talk to using that portable rig # are just a figment of my imagination? snip Nope. Not at all. I have quite a few contacts with a Heathkit HW-7 powered with 8 "D" cells, a homebrew balanced tuner and open wire dipole. This was use on board a sailboat. |
The earth
"NM5K" napisal w wiadomosci ... On 4/17/2012 3:01 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote: napisal w wiadomosci ... Fer instance, I'm sitting out in the woods up at my recreational living center.. I have dipoles strung up in the trees which I leave there, and I roll the rg-58 coax up and hang it on a tree branch when I leave. Not a ground wire, or ground connection in sight.. And works perfectly well. Of course, you can't really see the wires here, but "S" can trust me, there is no ground connection. The radio is sitting on that stone bench, and the only connections are 12v to my car battery, Where is the car battery? On the stone bench or in the car? S* It doesn't matter. 12v is 12v.. But to answer your question, I open the hood of the car, and attach the wires to the battery while it's in the car. That way I can start the car to charge the battery every once in a while. But the power source of the radio has nothing whatsoever to do with the antenna. I could place the battery anywhere and the operation would be the same. The car is not part of the antenna. The *complete* antenna is suspended between a couple of oak trees well over my head. The antenna is decoupled from the feed line. And there are no connections to ground. One could consider the negative power lead as connecting to a "chassis", IE: the body of the car, but that is a DC connection, not RF. Each the earth/chassis/counterpoise are the DC nett connection. Moving the battery would make no difference whatsoever in the performance of the antenna. "Would" means that you are not sure. If you want to be sure you can make the two experimments: 1. Take off the car battery and sit it on the stone bench, and/or 2. Instal the ammeters on the each wires to the battery while it's in the car. Would be nice to know the results. Best Regards, S* |
The earth
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: A loop antena have the antinodes. The points at which electrons could "fly off". Yet they do not. See Fig. 2: http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm Why? A lot more has been learned since 1887. snip Can you measure the static electricity? Sure, with a static meter. Yet another device that didn't exist in 1887. You will transmit just fine if you have the ground/chassis/counterpoise. It depends on the type of antenna. If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: A loop antena have the antinodes. The points at which electrons could "fly off". Yet they do not. See Fig. 2: http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/lodge1102.htm Why? A lot more has been learned since 1887. snip Can you measure the static electricity? Sure, with a static meter. Yet another device that didn't exist in 1887. You will transmit just fine if you have the ground/chassis/counterpoise. It depends on the type of antenna. If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* So your claim is that it is sufficient to "have the chassis" and that this chassis does not have to be connected to the earth? What constitutes "the chassis"? Do you have any minimum size for the chassis to be a chassis? |
The earth
"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: napisa3 w wiadomo?ci ... If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* So your claim is that it is sufficient to "have the chassis" and that this chassis does not have to be connected to the earth? What constitutes "the chassis"? Do you have any minimum size for the chassis to be a chassis? See the new topic "Ground". S* |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: napisa3 w wiadomo?ci ... If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* So your claim is that it is sufficient to "have the chassis" and that this chassis does not have to be connected to the earth? What constitutes "the chassis"? Do you have any minimum size for the chassis to be a chassis? See the new topic "Ground". S* No I won't. Please stick to the topic and don't run away when you are caught with a mistake. |
The earth
"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: "Rob" napisa3 w wiadomo?ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: napisa3 w wiadomo?ci ... If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* So your claim is that it is sufficient to "have the chassis" and that this chassis does not have to be connected to the earth? What constitutes "the chassis"? Do you have any minimum size for the chassis to be a chassis? See the new topic "Ground". S* No I won't. Please stick to the topic and don't run away when you are caught with a mistake. Here you a "". In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of current without changing its potential. Where a real ground connection has a significant resistance, the approximation of zero potential is no longer valid. Stray voltages or earth potential rise effects will occur, which may create noise in signals or if large enough will produce an electric shock hazard. The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles such as ships, aircraft, and spacecraft may be spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which serves as the common return path for current from many different components in the circuit." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity) There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth." Each transmitter needs " an infinite source or sink for charge". The above you know. But some of you do not know that where the voltage is there is the field electron emission. So the sink is necessary. It must not be infinite. "a large conductor" absorb the electrons from the air. So its size must be adequate to the emission. Nice Fun. S* |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: "Rob" napisa3 w wiadomo?ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: napisa3 w wiadomo?ci ... If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* So your claim is that it is sufficient to "have the chassis" and that this chassis does not have to be connected to the earth? What constitutes "the chassis"? Do you have any minimum size for the chassis to be a chassis? See the new topic "Ground". S* No I won't. Please stick to the topic and don't run away when you are caught with a mistake. Here you a "". In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of current without changing its potential. Where a real ground connection has a significant resistance, the approximation of zero potential is no longer valid. Stray voltages or earth potential rise effects will occur, which may create noise in signals or if large enough will produce an electric shock hazard. The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles such as ships, aircraft, and spacecraft may be spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which serves as the common return path for current from many different components in the circuit." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity) There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth." Each transmitter needs " an infinite source or sink for charge". The above you know. I know that it is not true. A transmitter needs no infinite source or sink for charge because it does not generate any DC current into the antenna. But some of you do not know that where the voltage is there is the field electron emission. So the sink is necessary. It must not be infinite. "a large conductor" absorb the electrons from the air. So its size must be adequate to the emission. Nice Fun. S* Ok so we can finally rest the case and agree that a connection to earth is not required for a transmitter, something you have claimed all the time because Marconi wrote it. |
The earth
On 4/18/2012 2:28 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Each the earth/chassis/counterpoise are the DC nett connection. That statement does not compute. Moving the battery would make no difference whatsoever in the performance of the antenna. "Would" means that you are not sure. No, "would" means just that. And I am sure. If you want to be sure you can make the two experimments: I'm already sure. I've run more portable stations over the years than you can imagine. With batteries in and out of the cars, using various types of "complete" antennas, and also using the vertical antennas on the vehicles. Even if I use an antenna on the vehicle, which *would* use the car body as part of the antenna, where I have the battery or radio makes no measurable difference in antenna performance. |
The earth
On Apr 17, 10:19*am, Jeff wrote:
On 17/04/2012 12:35, W5DXP wrote: On Apr 17, 3:41 am, *wrote: Corona discharge has nothing to do with grounding, it is purely due to the peak voltages seen at, (usually), the tips of the elements. To what are those peak voltages referenced? * The feedpoint and the surrounding air molecules How does one actually measure the voltage on the ends of an antenna? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
The earth
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message ... Moving the battery would make no difference whatsoever in the performance of the antenna. "Would" means that you are not sure. If you want to be sure you can make the two experimments: 1. Take off the car battery and sit it on the stone bench, and/or 2. Instal the ammeters on the each wires to the battery while it's in the car. Would be nice to know the results. Best Regards, S* Hello chaps. Let's not worry about Szczepan's misunderstanding of the word "would". I like the idea of the ammeters - I think I saw something similar in a textbook I have from the 1920s or 1930s. Best wishes to all, Ian. |
The earth
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
... If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Do any of you teach students hoping to gain an amateur radio licence? Some of Szczepan's postings would be useful for amusing those students and informing them how it is definitely not done. Hope you all have a fine Wednesday, Ian. |
The earth
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. . Here you a "". In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of current without changing its potential. Where a real ground connection has a significant resistance, the approximation of zero potential is no longer valid. Stray voltages or earth potential rise effects will occur, which may create noise in signals or if large enough will produce an electric shock hazard. The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles such as ships, aircraft, and spacecraft may be spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which serves as the common return path for current from many different components in the circuit." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity) S* Hello again folks. {I am concerned about Szczepan. He's cut-and-pasting from Wikipedia. Is he safe with a sharp pair of scissors?} I'm not sure whether to suggest that he also look at "chassis" and "common point". More seriously, I guess this is an example of a common word, "ground", having more than one technical meaning and this bringing confusion to the lay person. I really wish that Szczepan would get hold of a training manual for the amateur radio licence exams. The usual diagrams would enlighten him. Kindest regards from a wet UK, Ian. |
The earth
"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: "Rob" napisa3 w wiadomo?ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: "Rob" napisa3 w wiadomo?ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: napisa3 w wiadomo?ci ... If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* So your claim is that it is sufficient to "have the chassis" and that this chassis does not have to be connected to the earth? What constitutes "the chassis"? Do you have any minimum size for the chassis to be a chassis? See the new topic "Ground". S* No I won't. Please stick to the topic and don't run away when you are caught with a mistake. Here you a "". In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of current without changing its potential. Where a real ground connection has a significant resistance, the approximation of zero potential is no longer valid. Stray voltages or earth potential rise effects will occur, which may create noise in signals or if large enough will produce an electric shock hazard. The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles such as ships, aircraft, and spacecraft may be spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which serves as the common return path for current from many different components in the circuit." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity) There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth." Each transmitter needs " an infinite source or sink for charge". The above you know. I know that it is not true. A transmitter needs no infinite source or sink for charge because it does not generate any DC current into the antenna. It is true because it generate the oscillatory flow of electrons into the antenna. In such case the DC ammeter idicates the current. But some of you do not know that where the voltage is there is the field electron emission. So the sink is necessary. It must not be infinite. "a large conductor" absorb the electrons from the air. So its size must be adequate to the emission. Ok so we can finally rest the case and agree that a connection to earth is not required for a transmitter, something you have claimed all the time because Marconi wrote it. Marconi wrote: ""By "connected to earth" I do not necessarily mean an ordinary metallic connection as used for ordinary wire telegraphs. The earth wire may have a condenser in series with it, or it may be connected to what is really equivalent, a capacity area placed close to the surface of the ground (Fig. 4)." " a capacity area placed close to the surface of the ground" = " large conductor " The case will be ready to rest if you admit that Marconi was right in his Nobel lecture. S* |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisa? w wiadomo?ci ... It depends on the type of antenna. If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* No, they do not. I doubt you know what the word "chassis" means. |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth." Nope, you just don't understand what is meant. Each transmitter needs " an infinite source or sink for charge". Nope. The above you know. But some of you do not know that where the voltage is there is the field electron emission. So the sink is necessary. Meaningless babble. It must not be infinite. "a large conductor" absorb the electrons from the air. So its size must be adequate to the emission. More meaningless babble. Antennas do not have a chassis. In the days of wired electronics, the chassis was the metal box the equipment was built in and used as a common return, i.e. what is called ground but has no relationship to the Earth. By convention it was mearly the common connection point for the most negative voltage. In todays world of circuit boards, there is often no chassis. Most portable equipment these days is a circuit board in a plastic box. No chassis. No ground, as in to the Earth, connection. |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Each transmitter needs " an infinite source or sink for charge". The above you know. I know that it is not true. A transmitter needs no infinite source or sink for charge because it does not generate any DC current into the antenna. It is true because it generate the oscillatory flow of electrons into the antenna. In such case the DC ammeter idicates the current. It is a pity that you don't have a transmitter, or otherwise it would be easy for you to see for yourself that you are talking nonsense! There is no DC current from a transmitter into the antenna. But some of you do not know that where the voltage is there is the field electron emission. So the sink is necessary. It must not be infinite. "a large conductor" absorb the electrons from the air. So its size must be adequate to the emission. Ok so we can finally rest the case and agree that a connection to earth is not required for a transmitter, something you have claimed all the time because Marconi wrote it. Marconi wrote: ""By "connected to earth" I do not necessarily mean an ordinary metallic connection as used for ordinary wire telegraphs. The earth wire may have a condenser in series with it, or it may be connected to what is really equivalent, a capacity area placed close to the surface of the ground (Fig. 4)." " a capacity area placed close to the surface of the ground" = " large conductor " The case will be ready to rest if you admit that Marconi was right in his Nobel lecture. S* No, he was not right. And you have described yourself what was wrong in what he wrote. |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"Rob" napisa? w wiadomo?ci ... snip I know that it is not true. A transmitter needs no infinite source or sink for charge because it does not generate any DC current into the antenna. It is true because it generate the oscillatory flow of electrons into the antenna. Meaningless babble; there is no such thing. In such case the DC ammeter idicates the current. What DE ammeter? Ok so we can finally rest the case and agree that a connection to earth is not required for a transmitter, something you have claimed all the time because Marconi wrote it. Marconi wrote: ""By "connected to earth" I do not necessarily mean an ordinary metallic connection as used for ordinary wire telegraphs. The earth wire may have a condenser in series with it, or it may be connected to what is really equivalent, a capacity area placed close to the surface of the ground (Fig. 4)." " a capacity area placed close to the surface of the ground" = " large conductor " The case will be ready to rest if you admit that Marconi was right in his Nobel lecture. Marconi was wrong. Get over it. |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"NM5K" napisal w wiadomosci ... On 4/17/2012 3:01 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote: napisal w wiadomosci ... Fer instance, I'm sitting out in the woods up at my recreational living center.. I have dipoles strung up in the trees which I leave there, and I roll the rg-58 coax up and hang it on a tree branch when I leave. Not a ground wire, or ground connection in sight.. And works perfectly well. Of course, you can't really see the wires here, but "S" can trust me, there is no ground connection. The radio is sitting on that stone bench, and the only connections are 12v to my car battery, Where is the car battery? On the stone bench or in the car? S* It doesn't matter. 12v is 12v.. But to answer your question, I open the hood of the car, and attach the wires to the battery while it's in the car. That way I can start the car to charge the battery every once in a while. But the power source of the radio has nothing whatsoever to do with the antenna. I could place the battery anywhere and the operation would be the same. The car is not part of the antenna. The *complete* antenna is suspended between a couple of oak trees well over my head. The antenna is decoupled from the feed line. And there are no connections to ground. One could consider the negative power lead as connecting to a "chassis", IE: the body of the car, but that is a DC connection, not RF. Each the earth/chassis/counterpoise are the DC nett connection. Meaningless babble. Moving the battery would make no difference whatsoever in the performance of the antenna. "Would" means that you are not sure. Nope. He is sure, I am sure, and everyone that knows anything about RF is sure. The only one in the dark is you. If you want to be sure you can make the two experimments: 1. Take off the car battery and sit it on the stone bench, and/or 2. Instal the ammeters on the each wires to the battery while it's in the car. Would be nice to know the results. Been done innumerable times; it makes no difference. You are a babbling idiot. |
The earth
"Ian" wrote in message ... "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message ... If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* # Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. # # Do any of you teach students hoping to gain an amateur radio licence? # Some of Szczepan's postings would be useful for amusing those students and # informing them how it is definitely not done. # # Hope you all have a fine Wednesday, # Ian. And another side benefit. This NG has had few postings in several months. I haven't seen this much activity on r.r.a.a since the GFW.* Wayne W5GIE * GFW= Great Fractal Wars (TM). |
The earth
On 4/18/2012 8:15 PM, Wayne wrote:
"Ian" wrote in message ... "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message ... If it is a dipole, yagi, log-periodic, sturba curtain, rhombic, parabolic, helix, loop, cubical quad, on any of many, many more types of antennas that have no place or need to connect a ground, it would not. Each of them has the chassis. S* # Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. # # Do any of you teach students hoping to gain an amateur radio licence? # Some of Szczepan's postings would be useful for amusing those students and # informing them how it is definitely not done. # # Hope you all have a fine Wednesday, # Ian. And another side benefit. This NG has had few postings in several months. I haven't seen this much activity on r.r.a.a since the GFW.* Wayne W5GIE * GFW= Great Fractal Wars (TM). You and others are correct. The MIQ has injected some fun. tom K0TAR |
The earth
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth." Nope, you just don't understand what is meant. In the days of wired electronics, the chassis was the metal box the equipment was built in and used as a common return, i.e. what is called ground but has no relationship to the Earth. By convention it was mearly the common connection point for the most negative voltage. In todays world of circuit boards, there is often no chassis. Most portable equipment these days is a circuit board in a plastic box. "This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) " No chassis. No ground, as in to the Earth, connection. The "large conductor" works as the earth. S* |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth." Nope, you just don't understand what is meant. In the days of wired electronics, the chassis was the metal box the equipment was built in and used as a common return, i.e. what is called ground but has no relationship to the Earth. By convention it was mearly the common connection point for the most negative voltage. In todays world of circuit boards, there is often no chassis. Most portable equipment these days is a circuit board in a plastic box. "This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) " No chassis. No ground, as in to the Earth, connection. The "large conductor" works as the earth. S* So you agree that a transmitter needs no connection to the earth? |
The earth
"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: "This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) " The "large conductor" works as the earth. S* So you agree that a transmitter needs no connection to the earth? Of course YES. The "large conductor" is enough. S* |
The earth
On 4/19/2012 2:40 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan wrote: "This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board)" The "large conductor" works as the earth. S* So you agree that a transmitter needs no connection to the earth? Of course YES. The "large conductor" is enough. S* You finally agree, but for all the wrong reasons. :| Reboot and try again. Like Will Robinson, you are still lost in space. I'm not even going to try to explain why, as you likely won't believe a word I say. |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan Bialek wrote: "This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) " The "large conductor" works as the earth. S* So you agree that a transmitter needs no connection to the earth? Of course YES. The "large conductor" is enough. S* So, Marconi was wrong after all! |
The earth
"NM5K" napisal w wiadomosci ... On 4/19/2012 2:40 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote: napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... Szczepan wrote: "This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board)" The "large conductor" works as the earth. S* So you agree that a transmitter needs no connection to the earth? Of course YES. The "large conductor" is enough. S* You finally agree, but for all the wrong reasons. :| Reboot and try again. Like Will Robinson, you are still lost in space. I'm not even going to try to explain why, as you likely won't believe a word I say. I believe in each your word. But I simply do not know where in your equipment the "large conductor" is. Probably it is the coax: "Many conventional coaxial cables use braided copper wire forming the shield". I also belive in each Tesla's word. He discovered that in his secondary coil is the oscillatory electron flow from the earth into the air. Why is it impossible? S* |
The earth
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I believe in each your word. But I simply do not know where in your equipment the "large conductor" is. In your statements, you never specify what a "large conductor" is. Today, transmitters are often very small and still they work OK without any earth connection. How large should a "large conductor" be? Probably it is the coax: "Many conventional coaxial cables use braided copper wire forming the shield". The transmitted signal flows only along the inside of the shield of the coax. The outside is supposed to carry no signal. If it does, there is a problem with the antenna system. I also belive in each Tesla's word. He discovered that in his secondary coil is the oscillatory electron flow from the earth into the air. Why is it impossible? S* We do not operate our transmitters in the region where electrons start flowing into the air, because we do not like arcing. Tesla did, but he was in a different business. |
The earth
On Apr 19, 3:13*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
I also belive in each Tesla's word. He discovered that in his secondary coil is the oscillatory electron flow from the earth into the air. Why is it impossible? Because RF EM waves are not made up of electrons. The particles that are flowing in an RF EM wave are photons. RF waves travel at the speed of light. Electrons cannot travel at the speed of light. If Tesla actually believed that an RF wave consists of electron flow, he was simply ignorant of quantum electrodynamics. That may be the reason why he failed to transfer large amounts of power through the air in an efficient manner. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
The earth
"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci ... On Apr 19, 3:13 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: I also belive in each Tesla's word. He discovered that in his secondary coil is the oscillatory electron flow from the earth into the air. Why is it impossible? Because RF EM waves are not made up of electrons. The particles that are flowing in an RF EM wave are photons. RF waves travel at the speed of light. Electrons cannot travel at the speed of light. Electron waves travel. Electrons have different speeds like the all gases. If Tesla actually believed that an RF wave consists of electron flow, he was simply ignorant of quantum electrodynamics. That may be the reason why he failed to transfer large amounts of power through the air in an efficient manner. He wrote that for this you must use the higher frequency than was possible in his time. Now all transfer large amounts of power through the air in an efficient manner. Light is an example. But now we have the free electron laser. S* |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com