Ground
 

". In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of
current without changing its potential. Where a real ground connection has a
significant resistance, the approximation of zero potential is no longer
valid. Stray voltages or earth potential rise effects will occur, which may
create noise in signals or if large enough will produce an electric shock
hazard.
The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such
as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles such as
ships, aircraft, and spacecraft may be spoken of as having a "ground"
connection without any actual connection to the Earth. This is usually a
large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the
"ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which serves as the common return
path for current from many different components in the circuit." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)

There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection
without any actual connection to the Earth."

Each transmitter needs " an infinite source or sink for charge".

The above you know.

But some of you do not know that where the voltage is there is the field
electron emission. So the sink is necessary.

It must not be infinite. "a large conductor" absorb the electrons from the
air. So its size must be adequate to the emission.

Nice Fun.

S*

Ground
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
". In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount
of current without changing its potential. Where a real ground connection
has a significant resistance, the approximation of zero potential is no
longer valid. Stray voltages or earth potential rise effects will occur,
which may create noise in signals or if large enough will produce an
electric shock hazard.
The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such
as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles such as
ships, aircraft, and spacecraft may be spoken of as having a "ground"
connection without any actual connection to the Earth. This is usually a
large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the
"ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which serves as the common
return path for current from many different components in the circuit."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)

There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection
without any actual connection to the Earth."

Each transmitter needs " an infinite source or sink for charge".

The above you know.

But some of you do not know that where the voltage is there is the field
electron emission. So the sink is necessary.

It must not be infinite. "a large conductor" absorb the electrons from the
air. So its size must be adequate to the emission.

Nice Fun.

S*

Ah - so there still are some articles in Wikipedia that lack technical
accuracy. The quote above demonstrates poor use of the word "ground" and
that's caused Szczepan to misunderstand.

Regards, Ian.

Ground
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
". In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of
current without changing its potential. Where a real ground connection has a
significant resistance, the approximation of zero potential is no longer
valid. Stray voltages or earth potential rise effects will occur, which may
create noise in signals or if large enough will produce an electric shock
hazard.
The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such
as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles such as
ships, aircraft, and spacecraft may be spoken of as having a "ground"
connection without any actual connection to the Earth. This is usually a
large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the
"ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which serves as the common return
path for current from many different components in the circuit." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)

There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection
without any actual connection to the Earth."

No, that is not what it says or means.

Each transmitter needs " an infinite source or sink for charge".

No, they do not.

The above you know.

You are the only one on the planet saying this.

But some of you do not know that where the voltage is there is the field
electron emission. So the sink is necessary.

This is uttter nonsense.

It must not be infinite. "a large conductor" absorb the electrons from the
air. So its size must be adequate to the emission.

This is more utter nonsense.

Nice Fun.


You are a babbling idiot.

Ground
 

On 4/18/2012 8:24 AM, Ian wrote:
"Szczepan wrote in message
...
". In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount
of current without changing its potential. Where a real ground connection
has a significant resistance, the approximation of zero potential is no
longer valid. Stray voltages or earth potential rise effects will occur,
which may create noise in signals or if large enough will produce an
electric shock hazard.
The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such
as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles such as
ships, aircraft, and spacecraft may be spoken of as having a "ground"
connection without any actual connection to the Earth. This is usually a
large conductor attached to one side of the power supply (such as the
"ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which serves as the common
return path for current from many different components in the circuit."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)

There is wrote that all of your transmitter have "a "ground" connection
without any actual connection to the Earth."

Each transmitter needs " an infinite source or sink for charge".

The above you know.

But some of you do not know that where the voltage is there is the field
electron emission. So the sink is necessary.

It must not be infinite. "a large conductor" absorb the electrons from the
air. So its size must be adequate to the emission.

Nice Fun.

S*

Ah - so there still are some articles in Wikipedia that lack technical
accuracy. The quote above demonstrates poor use of the word "ground" and
that's caused Szczepan to misunderstand.

Regards, Ian.



Several replies convinced me to unPLONK him.

He is amusing and either doesn't get the responses or doesn't care. Or
maybe he _can't_ care.

tom
K0TAR

Ground
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net... Several replies
convinced me to unPLONK him.

He is amusing and either doesn't get the responses or doesn't care. Or
maybe he _can't_ care.

tom
K0TAR

Hello Tom.

You're right - he is amusing. I suspect he has some old textbooks and is
bouncing from one paragraph to another.

73 Ian.

Ground
 

In message , Ian
writes
"tom" wrote in message
.net... Several replies
convinced me to unPLONK him.

He is amusing and either doesn't get the responses or doesn't care. Or
maybe he _can't_ care.

tom
K0TAR

Hello Tom.

You're right - he is amusing. I suspect he has some old textbooks and is
bouncing from one paragraph to another.

Has anyone considered that they might be actually talking to a computer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
--
Ian

Ground
 

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

Has anyone considered that they might be actually talking to a computer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
--
Ian

Hello Ian.

I had wondered if that might be the case but I tended more towards
cut-and-paste by someone who find Wikipedia pages.

73, Ian.

Ground
 

Ian wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

Has anyone considered that they might be actually talking to a computer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
--
Ian

Hello Ian.

I had wondered if that might be the case but I tended more towards
cut-and-paste by someone who find Wikipedia pages.

73, Ian.

He is an idiot that cuts and pastes from web pages.

Most of the pages he uses are historical in nature.

I have no clue what motivates the little idiot to be such an idiot, but
I suspect brain chemical problems.

Ground
 

wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:

He is an idiot that cuts and pastes from web pages.
Most of the pages he uses are historical in nature.
I have no clue what motivates the little idiot to be such an idiot, but
I suspect brain chemical problems.

Hello again. He reminds me of someone who is elderly and thinks that all
textbooks are the same ... so reads the ones from the 1930s and 1940s. This
fits in with the "Marconi was right" persuasion for, surely, Marconi was
synonymous with radio (though those of us who know something about Marconi
know that he developed radio from existing ideas).
I have had to help a few such people with "new" technology such as digital
television, digital radio and digital cameras. They find it hard to accept
that things have changed since they were young.
I'd like to know if Marconi saw his aerial as a device in its own right
(i.e. "here is a transmitter" and "here is an aerial") or simply as the part
of the transmitter that happened to be better at "projecting" a signal than
a piece of wire dangling from the end of a transmitter.

73, Ian.

Ground
 

Ian wrote:


wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:

He is an idiot that cuts and pastes from web pages.
Most of the pages he uses are historical in nature.
I have no clue what motivates the little idiot to be such an idiot, but
I suspect brain chemical problems.

Hello again. He reminds me of someone who is elderly and thinks that all
textbooks are the same ... so reads the ones from the 1930s and 1940s. This
fits in with the "Marconi was right" persuasion for, surely, Marconi was
synonymous with radio (though those of us who know something about Marconi
know that he developed radio from existing ideas).
I have had to help a few such people with "new" technology such as digital
television, digital radio and digital cameras. They find it hard to accept
that things have changed since they were young.
I'd like to know if Marconi saw his aerial as a device in its own right
(i.e. "here is a transmitter" and "here is an aerial") or simply as the part
of the transmitter that happened to be better at "projecting" a signal than
a piece of wire dangling from the end of a transmitter.

73, Ian.

Marconi certainly concidered an antenna to be a separate piece of equipment
and the word "antenna" comes from his use of the Italian word antenna, meaning
pole, to describe them.

It is becaue of his prominence the word spread to the general public.