"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*

"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.

"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*

"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.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:49:08 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

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

Use a static electricity dissipator:
https://www.google.com/search?q=static+dissipator&tbm=isch
Commonly found on airplane wing tips, fiberglass hull vessels, and
ungrounded towers prone to lightning hits. A 1M resistor to ground
will discharge any static build up across a base insulated tower.
http://www.lbagroup.com/international/tower-lightning-protection.php
http://www.lpsnet.com/ALS.asp

I'm not sure why you're arguing about grounding antennas. There are
plenty of examples of antennas that operate without a ground. If low
frequencies are your immediate concern, may I point out that DF loop
antennas are very popular on the beacon bands (200-400KHz). They also
work nicely in airplanes, where there's no available earth ground. BCB
is no different. There were plenty of antique home receivers that
used either an internal or external loop (or loopstick) antenna, that
didn't require a ground connection.

If BCB stations decided to use horizontal dipoles instead of vertical
monopoles, a ground would not be needed. The only reason they need a
ground is to act as the counterpoise for the monopole. This provides
the missing 1/4 wave element of the dipole.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:49:08 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

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

Use a static electricity dissipator:
https://www.google.com/search?q=static+dissipator&tbm=isch
Commonly found on airplane wing tips, fiberglass hull vessels, and
ungrounded towers prone to lightning hits. A 1M resistor to ground
will discharge any static build up across a base insulated tower.
http://www.lbagroup.com/international/tower-lightning-protection.php
http://www.lpsnet.com/ALS.asp

I'm not sure why you're arguing about grounding antennas. There are
plenty of examples of antennas that operate without a ground. If low
frequencies are your immediate concern, may I point out that DF loop
antennas are very popular on the beacon bands (200-400KHz). They also
work nicely in airplanes, where there's no available earth ground. BCB
is no different. There were plenty of antique home receivers that
used either an internal or external loop (or loopstick) antenna, that
didn't require a ground connection.

If BCB stations decided to use horizontal dipoles instead of vertical
monopoles, a ground would not be needed. The only reason they need a
ground is to act as the counterpoise for the monopole. This provides
the missing 1/4 wave element of the dipole.

I am not arguing. I agree with you that " they need a ground is to act as
the counterpoise for the monopole."
I hope that you agree with me that monopole on the plane/satellite has the
counterpoise in form of chassis.
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I am not arguing. I agree with you that " they need a ground is to act as
the counterpoise for the monopole."
I hope that you agree with me that monopole on the plane/satellite has the
counterpoise in form of chassis.
S*

You claimed that ANY transmitter with ANY antenna ALWAYS needs an
earth connection. That is incorrect. If Marconi claimed that,
Marconi was wrong.

Now you are more and more restricting the playing field by talking
about AM transmitters, monopoles, etc. And by extending your
definition of "an earth connection" to a chassis.

This of course leads to nothing. The original claim is still wrong.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:15:29 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

I am not arguing.

Very well. You are debating.

I agree with you that " they need a ground is to act as
the counterpoise for the monopole."

Not true. At higher frequencies, one can use the grounded coax cable
feed to act as a crude counterpoise.

I hope that you agree with me that monopole on the plane/satellite has the
counterpoise in form of chassis.

No. You claim that because the monopole requires a ground, therefore
all antennas require a ground. That's too general a claim and is not
true, even for a monopole. For example, a very common antenna type at
2.4GHz is a "meandering 1/4 wave" antenna, which uses no ground:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/laptops/slides/compaq-2120us.html
Another example is the metal rim of the iPhone 4G. It's an untuned,
ungrounded, end-fed, monopole in the form of parts of a metal frame.

There's also a large distinction between a "ground" and a
counterpoise. A counterpoise is a part of the antenna system and may
be earth ground in some situations. In RF, a ground is a connection
to the earth. While there is some overlap in these definitions, your
claim, that all antennas require a ground, was presumably referring to
the earth ground, as described by your examples of broadcast towers
and static buildups.

For a satellite, there's may be a counterpoise, but no (earth) ground.
The counterpoise is unlikely because most satellites use circular
polarization (to eliminate sensitivity to orientation), using spiral
wound or pyramid shaped antenna structures that are matched to
whatever the coax cable provides. The skin of the satellite is
crammed with other antennas, solar cells, and sensors, that finding an
area sufficiently large to be considered a metal counterpoise, is
impossible.

The only thing really necessary for an antenna to function is the
radiating element. Everything else is optional and depends on what
you're trying to accomplish.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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*