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.

U¿ytkownik "Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"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.

Is it necessary to "get the static to bypass my receiver".

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.

For me is enough to know "Is it the ground/chassis/counterpoise necessary to
"get the static to bypass a transmitter/receiver".?
I hope that some of you know the answer.

I am not asking If "Does a ground connection is necessary in order to
receive a signal."

Best regards,
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Is it necessary to "get the static to bypass my receiver".

Hello Szczepan.

No, it is not necessary to ge the static to bypass a receiver.


For me is enough to know "Is it the ground/chassis/counterpoise necessary
to "get the static to bypass a transmitter/receiver".?
I hope that some of you know the answer.

Same answer. It is not necessary ...

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.