"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

"
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*


Hello again Szczepan .
You used the term "dobled". Was it a typing error on your part?

Yes.

Are we discussing spark transmission and non-resonant aerials?

The earth/chassis and the field electron emission..
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Are we discussing spark transmission and non-resonant aerials?

The earth/chassis and the field electron emission..
S*

Hey Szczepan,

Spark transmitters are not used anymore.
Try to find some more recent articles about transmitting.

Today we use nicely synthesized carrier waves that are fed to
antennas suitable for the frequency in use, not a noise generator
and transformer to high voltages connected to a random wire net.

Especially when that frequency is somewhat higher (much higer
than what Marconi and Tesla were transmitting on), there is no
need for en earth connection or even a chassis.
That is because an antenna is used that is balanced or has its
own counterpoise for the driven element.

A connection to earth would not be effective anyway, because
antennas used at higher frequencies are often several wavelengths
above the earth, and a wire used to connect to the earth would
not behave like a conductor at those frequencies.

We also operate our antennas well below the point where arcing
occurs, so we don't have to deal with electron emission.

So now please go off to a group that operates the century old
techniques that you seem to be discussing.
Maybe you can find a Tesla coil enthousiasts group where your
voice will be appreciated, although I think they are not using
sparkgaps anymore either.

Well I am going to be unusually kind today, since it is Sunday and also because I am going to show some intelligence here. So everyone listen up - because I am only going to do this one time.

I am not going to fight over who invented radio, or the different types of modulation scheme's - since the days of spark gap transmitters.

I tried to post some relevant information - but it seemed to get lost in the jumble.

The bottom line is - 3rd world countries and places such as the Soviet Union and their sattelite countries does not understand how communications works - to the extent that people in the free world does - because when you live in a communist society you are told what to think and how to think and so you cannot think for yourself.

When the day comes when someone emancipates you and you are free and all of a sudden there is no one telling you how to think or what to say - your mind goes beserk and you just start thinking about things that no one has thought about in 50 years - because even a infant has to crawl before it can walk and those people are so far behind the times it will take them a certain period of time to readjust to the way the rest of the world operates and so we have to be kind to people who were not born and raised in the USA and thinks that they are the worlds leading source of all information and that everything published on the internet is factual.

The Sattelite one was the one that really got me to thinking.
There is nothing in outer space for the signals to bounce off of - so they travel millions of miles in just a couple of seconds and you have to wonder if there is some other form of intelligence on another planet several galaxies away that is monitoring our simple form of communications - and probably laughing at us for what we say and how we act and what we do.
Rock n roll music is probably the most entertaining of all the types of transmissions we make - because it doesn't make much sense when some rapper repeats the same thing over and over again and other musicians plays the same 3 chords over and over again and people pays millions of dollars to buy their albums and listen to them at concerts or that we would allow someone to play advertising over the radio and not turn it off or turn the dial to another frequency.

Or that some ham would be willing to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to buy a transceiver that does the same basic thing as a AM radio you can buy in any Walmart or Goodwill for a couple of bucks.

When you crank up the power, it allows the person on the other end to use a smaller antenna - hence the people who buys or builds the big towers and the big beam antenna's would think that their investment would allow them global communications on a daily basis - and still we have not gotten past the fact that all reliable communicatiosn is LOS - even 100 years later...

The OP wanted to debate the fact that some antenna's works best when we include some type of ground. Yes a good vertical transmitting antenna includes some type of ground to keep the signal from warming the clouds and being wasted.
A beam antenna does not have a physical ground, yet still works - maybe the ground reflections helps the signals to travel further.
But we all know that effective communications requires the antenna to be as high as possible.
Only once you get to what is it 38,000 miles one antenna will transmit to one hemisphere - or is it what ever part of the earth you can see and will transmit no further.
That is the point of diminishing returns.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/f...ection-12.html

http://www.keytelemetering.com/9600_Antenna.htm

On 4/15/2012 11:28 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
Well I am going to be unusually kind today, since it is Sunday and also
because I am going to show some intelligence here. So everyone listen
up - because I am only going to do this one time.

How kind of you.


I am not going to fight over who invented radio, or the different types
of modulation scheme's - since the days of spark gap transmitters.

I tried to post some relevant information - but it seemed to get lost in
the jumble.

The info you posted dealt with mostly mobile applications.
Only vaguely relevant to the statement at hand, which was a quote
from a long dead radio buoy, stating that no practical wireless
system exists, which is not connected to earth.




Most of the irrelevant blabber-gab deleted to save bandwidth,
except for this one..

There is nothing in outer space for the signals to bounce off of - so
they travel millions of miles in just a couple of seconds.

That I would like to see, being as it takes light from the sun
over eight minutes to travel from the sun, to the earth.. Try about
372,564 miles in two seconds.. Hardly millions..


Or that some ham would be willing to spend 10's of thousands of dollars
to buy a transceiver that does the same basic thing as a AM radio you
can buy in any Walmart or Goodwill for a couple of bucks.

That's about one silly statement, unless the ham plans to do
nothing but listen to KTRH all day long. Most use them in other ways,
which most all of which the typical Wallace World special could only
dream of. I only wish Wallace World sold usable amateur radios for a
couple of bucks.
I'd have several hundred more radios than I already have. :|


When you crank up the power, it allows the person on the other end to
use a smaller antenna - hence the people who buys or builds the big
towers and the big beam antenna's would think that their investment
would allow them global communications on a daily basis - and still we
have not gotten past the fact that all reliable communicatiosn is LOS -
even 100 years later...

Does that mean they are all SOL?


The OP wanted to debate the fact that some antenna's works best when we
include some type of ground. Yes a good vertical transmitting antenna
includes some type of ground to keep the signal from warming the clouds
and being wasted.

Not all verticals require ground systems, and how did the clouds
ever get involved?
Seems you may be confusing the benefits of feed line decoupling
with the benefits of a radial system under a ground mounted monopole. :/

A beam antenna does not have a physical ground, yet still works - maybe
the ground reflections helps the signals to travel further.

Then maybe they don't.. Also, some directional arrays do use ground
systems, if they are ground mounted.
But this statement does not mean Marconi's statement is correct.


But we all know that effective communications requires the antenna to be
as high as possible.

In some cases, it may make no difference how high the antennas are.
In others, it may mean a great deal.

Only once you get to what is it 38,000 miles one antenna will transmit
to one hemisphere - or is it what ever part of the earth you can see and
will transmit no further.
That is the point of diminishing returns.

Maybe so, but there are no structures that high for me to
attach an antenna to. And I can't jump that high.

Uzytkownik "Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Are we discussing spark transmission and non-resonant aerials?

The earth/chassis and the field electron emission..
S*

Hey Szczepan,

Spark transmitters are not used anymore.
Try to find some more recent articles about transmitting.

Today we use nicely synthesized carrier waves that are fed to
antennas suitable for the frequency in use, not a noise generator
and transformer to high voltages connected to a random wire net.

Especially when that frequency is somewhat higher (much higer
than what Marconi and Tesla were transmitting on), there is no
need for en earth connection or even a chassis.
That is because an antenna is used that is balanced or has its
own counterpoise for the driven element.

Counterpoise, chassis and the earth are the same.

A connection to earth would not be effective anyway, because
antennas used at higher frequencies are often several wavelengths
above the earth, and a wire used to connect to the earth would
not behave like a conductor at those frequencies.

We also operate our antennas well below the point where arcing
occurs, so we don't have to deal with electron emission.

The field electron emission take place at each electric field.

So now please go off to a group that operates the century old
techniques that you seem to be discussing.
Maybe you can find a Tesla coil enthousiasts group where your
voice will be appreciated, although I think they are not using
sparkgaps anymore either.

We are discussing "The earth/chassis/counterpoise and the field electron
emission."
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
Are we discussing spark transmission and non-resonant aerials?

The earth/chassis and the field electron emission..
S*


Good afternoon Szczepan.
You didn't answer my question about aerials.
Are you discussing resonant or non-resonant aerials, please?

Kindest regards, Ian.