"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:

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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*