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

Is even one textbooks where is wrote that Marconi was WRONG?

Are your transmitters without any earth?

I am checking from time to time if your knowledge have moved on.
S*


Hello Szczepan.

In general, you seem to be looking at outdated techniques and technology.

My radio doesn't need to be connected to ground/earth other than for
static/lightning reasons. The theory and technology of radio have made a
lot of progress since the time of Marconi.

Hope this is of some help.
Kindest regards from the UK,
Ian.

Hello Ian,

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

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*

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

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

You have a big problem with comprehending, don't you?
Earlier you wrote that Marconi said that a capacitive coupling to ground
was good for HF grounding and now you want DC coupling to discharge
static electricity. Those two reasons for grounding are completely
different.

So I repeat my question:

Why do you repeat your question? It has been answered so many
times already.

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So the earth is necessary in your radio for the static reasons.
In my also:
"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

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

You have a big problem with comprehending, don't you?
Earlier you wrote that Marconi said that a capacitive coupling to ground
was good for HF grounding and now you want DC coupling to discharge
static electricity. Those two reasons for grounding are completely
different.

Each capacitor has the big surfaces and imperfect insulator between them.
Is it the "DC coupling to discharge static electricity"?

" You have a big problem with comprehending, don't you?"
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
So the earth is necessary in your radio for the static reasons.
In my also:
"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

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

You have a big problem with comprehending, don't you?
Earlier you wrote that Marconi said that a capacitive coupling to ground
was good for HF grounding and now you want DC coupling to discharge
static electricity. Those two reasons for grounding are completely
different.

Each capacitor has the big surfaces and imperfect insulator between them.
Is it the "DC coupling to discharge static electricity"?

No.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Each capacitor has the big surfaces and imperfect insulator between them.

Wrong.

Is it the "DC coupling to discharge static electricity"?

Usually that and nothing more.

Marconi was WRONG.

Marconi was WRONG.

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


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

Is even one textbooks where is wrote that Marconi was WRONG?

Are your transmitters without any earth?

I am checking from time to time if your knowledge have moved on.
S*


Hello Szczepan.

In general, you seem to be looking at outdated techniques and technology.

My radio doesn't need to be connected to ground/earth other than for
static/lightning reasons. The theory and technology of radio have made a
lot of progress since the time of Marconi.

Hope this is of some help.
Kindest regards from the UK,
Ian.

# Hello Ian,
#
# So the earth is necessary in your radio for the static reasons.
# In my also:
# "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
#
# 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*

The answer is still NO. As pointed out by several others, there are
gazillions of radios operating without an "earth ground".

If one wants to connect an antenna to ground for lightning protection
reasons, that has nothing at all to do with antenna radiation.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

So the earth is necessary in your radio for the static reasons.

You have no clue what he is talking about.

In my also:
"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

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*

It never was generally true.

You have been told this many times now.

"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.