"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.

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*

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.

"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.

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

"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*

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.

"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*

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.

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.