Hopefully not off topic
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

All transmitters and receivers are connected with the mass.
S*


Mine aren't.

The way you talk about radio reminds me of a friend who used crystal sets
back in the 1920s. Fortunately, hew was able to learn modern radio theory
and practise.

A cristal sets has the modern name "rectenna":
"A simple rectenna element consists of a dipole antenna with a diode
connected across the dipole elements. The diode rectifies the AC current
induced in the antenna by the microwaves, to produce DC power, which powers
a load connected across the diode. Z: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna



I've a recollection that you've posted your views onto this newsgroup a
few weeks ago.
I guess that asking you to disregard 19th century understanding and learn
20th and 21st century understanding is probably an unproductive approach.

But I hope that you understand that 19th century physics and 21st century
are the same.
In the 20th the all was a top secret.
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:46:49 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

Radio transmitter is an electron pump.

Prove it. Show me a way you can detect your mythical electrons coming
off the antenna. Or better yet, explain to me why common methods of
detecting electrons (fluorescence, phosphorescence, Wilson cloud
chamber, electrometer, electroscope, etc) fail to detect your mythical
electrons.

Cold electron field emission is easy to measure at above 10 V.

But without the "infinite source or sink for charge" it do not work.

How large is infinite? Does that mean that radio only works when I
can't measure it?

Channel wrote: "With a Hand Held Radio - the person holding the transceiver
is the
ground plane. Because the human body is comprised mainly of water, it
acts like the missing half of the antenna."


Without the "infinite source or sink for charge" a transmitter is gaining
a
rather large positive charge.

Amazing. I put my voltmeter on the case of my HT, and there's no DC
voltage when transmitting. Same with various HF transmitters. Perhaps
my radio is not infinite enough.

Tesla made the electron beam and next the X-rays.

Electron beams (cathode rays) were discovered by Johann Hittorf in
1869.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray
X-rays were correctly described by Wilhelm Röntgen in 1895.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
Please have you history recalibrated.

There no contradictions:
"In April 1887, Tesla began investigating what would later be called X-rays
using his own single terminal vacuum tubes (similar to his patent #514,170).
This device differed from other early X-ray tubes in that it had no target
electrode. The modern term for the phenomenon produced by this device is
bremsstrahlung (or braking radiation). It is now known that this device
operated by emitting electrons from the single electrode through a
combination of field electron emission and thermionic emission. Once
liberated, electrons are strongly repelled by the high electric field near
the electrode during negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output
of the Tesla Coil, generating X rays as they collide with the glass
envelope. He also used Geissler tubes. By 1892, Tesla became aware of the
skin damage that Wilhelm Röntgen later identified as an effect of X rays."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nikola_Tesla

They are connected to the mass (chassis).

Where is the chassis on my HT, TV antenna, dipole, satellite antenna,
and other antennas that are not grounded? They seem to work equally
well with metallic, insulating, and unsupported mounting arrangements.
Also, without I ground, I presume aircraft communications also does
not work?

Now, that we have the requisite science fiction out of the way, could
I trouble you to answer my original question.
Is your theory that if you repeat the same garbage over and over,
eventually someone will believe it?

It is theory of Faraday, Lorenz, Marconi, Tesla and Dirac.

Some of their early guesses were wrong. It was bad enough that when
Lee De Forest had to defend his patents in court, he could not explain
how they worked. I don't care if your theory came directly from the
radio gods themselves. If your theory cannot stand up to simple
scrutiny and real world examples, then it's garbage, no matter from
where you excavated it.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question (3rd try). Do you believe that
repeating the same wrong theory over and over will somehow make it
correct? Or perhaps your plan is to wear everyone down with your one
line incorrect and unsubstantiated claims, in the hope that we will
become tired of your games and go away? Or, are you simply craving
for attention?

Who is the authors of yours?

I haven't presented a theory. I've only shot holes in your theory. I
don't need the testimony of dead scientists to demonstrate that an
ungrounded antenna still functions and that antennas do not belch
electons.

Tesla and Marconi proved that antenna must be grounded and that it
emmits/gains electrons.

Incidentally, if you had a clue, which you apparently do not, you
might read up on photons, which are the carriers of electromagnetic
force, including RF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Photons are in the teaching program as a simplification.
In physics are the wave packets.
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Tesla and Marconi proved that antenna must be grounded and that it
emmits/gains electrons.

But later it was found that they had been wrong, and that only a
strange critter named Szczepan Bialek was still writing about it.

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Tesla and Marconi proved that antenna must be grounded and that it
emmits/gains electrons.

No, they did not.

Today we know that SOME types of antennas work better if grounded and that
there are no electrons gained or lost from antennas.

You are a babbling fool.

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

All transmitters and receivers are connected with the mass.
S*


Mine aren't.

The way you talk about radio reminds me of a friend who used crystal sets
back in the 1920s. Fortunately, hew was able to learn modern radio theory
and practise.

A cristal sets has the modern name "rectenna":
"A simple rectenna element consists of a dipole antenna with a diode
connected across the dipole elements. The diode rectifies the AC current
induced in the antenna by the microwaves, to produce DC power, which powers
a load connected across the diode. Z: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

Yet more of your babbling nonsense.

Either you did not read the whole article, or more likely, you are incapable
of understanding what the article actually says.

You are a babbling fool.

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
...

Why does anyone answer Skeezix Blutarsky?


Hello Sal.
Ah well, I guess that some of us like to try to be helpful. I'm hoping that
Szczepan might one day read some modern books on radio theory and practice.
Reminds me of when I had a relative who was unable to accept and understand
modern day life and technology. Tried to help but relative was incurable.

As someone else has said, we've had some good discussions about antenna
theory and practice.

Regards, Ian.

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
I've a recollection that you've posted your views onto this newsgroup a
few weeks ago.
I guess that asking you to disregard 19th century understanding and learn
20th and 21st century understanding is probably an unproductive approach.

But I hope that you understand that 19th century physics and 21st century
are the same.
In the 20th the all was a top secret.
S*

I don't recall us having nuclear bombs in the 19th century, nor transistors
nor integrated circuits. The underlying physics may not have changed but
man's understanding of it certainly has.
By analogy, the human body is still the same design as it was in the 15th /
16th /17th centuries (and earlier and later). If you need a doctor, will you
go to one practising 21st century medicine or 15th century medicine?
Would you prefer to drive a 21st century car or a 19th century car? Would
you be worried about dropping off the flat earth?
Perhaps you should study the "phlogiston" theory. How about the opposition
that Galileo encountered when he tried to support the theory of Copernicus
that Earth orbits around the Sun? If you'd been around in the time of
Galileo and Copernicus I guess you'd be certain that the Sun orbits the
Earth. After all, that's how Ptolemy said it was and that view lasted a
thousand years or more.

Regards, Ian.

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...



Tesla and Marconi proved that antenna must be grounded and that it
emmits/gains electrons.

Ah no, Marconi showed that HIS antenna worked better when connected to
ground. He definitely did not prove that all antenna must be grounded
because many antennas in common use to-day (for example the quad and the
yagi) weren't invented until long after Marconi's experiments.
Several people have told you the same thing. Some of those people hold
amateur radio licences and will have built and operated antenna which
definitely are not connected to ground so they'll know what works.

Any truth in the rumour that you live in the central USA and hold an Extra
Class licence?

Regards, Ian.

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...


snip

I enjoy reading (and writing) science fiction.
However, the real reason is that I haven't seen any decent antenna
related discussions in this newsgroup for a long time.


--
Jeff Liebermann

Well, with Field Day coming up, I had planned to use last year's 20m dipole
again, but I was on the phone with a guy last night and he dictated some
really easy-sounding plans for a two-element quad. It's supposed to be good
for 6 dB more gain than a dipole. Yes please, I'll take one free S-unit.
We're in the southwest corner of the country, so aiming it is a no-brainer.

Maybe I can post a diary of the build to amuse you nice folks by
demonstrating my (lack of) skill using hand tools. By the way, we'll be
using N3FJP's "Field Day Network Logger" this year, for the first time.
Last year, one of our guys used N3FJP single-station logger for himself
(400+ contacts) and he registered the network version for the club. I like
it. We've had several good trial runs. Find it at http://www.n3fjp.com/.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)
Club President
Club FD Chairman,
Principal Elmer
Donation Sales Manager
(Jeez -- what am I _not_ doing?)

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...

Ah well, I guess that some of us like to try to be helpful. I'm hoping
that
Szczepan might one day read some modern books on radio theory and
practice.
Reminds me of when I had a relative who was unable to accept and
understand modern day life and technology. Tried to help but relative was
incurable.

Methinks this one is incurable, too.

73,
"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
...

" Well, with Field Day coming up, I had planned to use last year's 20m
dipole again, but I was on the phone with a guy last night and he dictated
some really easy-sounding plans for a two-element quad. It's supposed to
be good for 6 dB more gain than a dipole. Yes please, I'll take one free
S-unit. We're in the southwest corner of the country, so aiming it is a
no-brainer.

Maybe I can post a diary of the build to amuse you nice folks by
demonstrating my (lack of) skill using hand tools. By the way, we'll be
using N3FJP's "Field Day Network Logger" this year, for the first time.
Last year, one of our guys used N3FJP single-station logger for himself
(400+ contacts) and he registered the network version for the club. I
like it. We've had several good trial runs. Find it at
http://www.n3fjp.com/.

"Sal" (KD6VKW) Club President Club FD Chairman, Principal Elmer
Donation Sales Manager (Jeez -- what am I _not_ doing?)

Hello courteous, dedicated and hard-working (over-worked) Sal.

After that write-up you may get a posting from a certain person telling you
to use a 19th century antenna rather than a modern one. So much better for
throwing those electrons into the aether :-)

I'd be delighted to read your diary. Your hard work will save my hands from
Bandaids and other first-aid treatments. I like to learn through other's
pain. Actually, a two-element quad might be a project for 2013 for me - not
sure if my yagi is still fit for work on 20m - 15m - 10m. Homebrew quads
used to be popular here in the UK some decades ago.

73, Ian.

Hopefully not off topic-link
 

"John" wrote in message
. au...
Here is the 'T" antenna I referred to. It is totally plastic.

http://www.happywanderer.net.au/page...9&parent2id=24

If link doesnt work the website is www.happywanderer.net.au and the image
is on first screen. The totally plastic covered yagi I saw was somewhere
in ebay. I,ll see if I can find it again.
Regards
John



"John" wrote in message
. au...
Whilst trying to source a "digital" TV antenna I came across some with
all external surfaces plastic. One was a small yagi with all external
surfaces plastic, hopefully with metal elements embedded. Another a "T"
shape made out of plastic conduit with elements inside conduit.
My question is how do they work?. If they are detecting electrical fields
how does increasing source impedance by 100,s of megohms improve things?.
Capacitive coupling, I suppose at the frequencies involved there would be
some.
If it works as well as all metal why doesn,t every one use it and stop
corrosion?
Hope this is not too off topic.
Many thanks
John

It is probably what is called a "folded dipole."

We used to make them out of common TV twinlead. They have a characterisstic
impedance around 300 ohms, same as the twinlead, so the black block at the
hub is likely to be a 300-75-ohm balun (trannsformer) to match the coaxial
cable lead-in.

You determine the frequency of interest and cut it to size, accordingly.
They're not too great for wide-band coverage, but you might get lucky. (The
wide-band issue is why big, expensive antennas always have elements of many
different sizes. "One Size Fits All" definitely does NOT apply to antennas.

"Sal"

Hopefully not off topic
 

On 5/31/2012 5:43 PM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote:
wrote in message
...

Ah well, I guess that some of us like to try to be helpful. I'm hoping
that
Szczepan might one day read some modern books on radio theory and
practice.
Reminds me of when I had a relative who was unable to accept and
understand modern day life and technology. Tried to help but relative was
incurable.

Methinks this one is incurable, too.

73,
"Sal"
(KD6VKW)



I bet he has an outhouse. Who needs modern plumbing when the negative
15th century stuff has worked so well for 25 centuries?

tom
K0TAR

Hopefully not off topic
 

On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:06:22 -0700, "Sal M. O'Nella"
wrote:

However, the real reason is that I haven't seen any decent antenna
related discussions in this newsgroup for a long time.
Jeff Liebermann

Well, with Field Day coming up, I had planned to use last year's 20m dipole
again, but I was on the phone with a guy last night and he dictated some
really easy-sounding plans for a two-element quad. It's supposed to be good
for 6 dB more gain than a dipole. Yes please, I'll take one free S-unit.
We're in the southwest corner of the country, so aiming it is a no-brainer.

Much better. Field Day is the prime incentive to do last minute
repairs on antennas and equipment. It's also a great place to do
testing that should have been performed before Field Day. Learn by
Destroying at its best. While fatalities and major injuries tend to
be minimal, I can't say the same for equipment and antenna failures.
Somehow, the miracle antenna contrived specifically for Field Day just
doesn't seem to tune or work as expected. Your "easy-sounding plans"
should be an ominous warning of problems to follow.

I'm staying out of Field Day this year. I had planned to deploy my
inflatable antenna design, but decided that doing R&D on top of a
mountain was not a good idea. I plan to visit, but not operate much.
I did my part this morning by customizing one of the Field Day
trailers with my cutting torch. Hopefully, I didn't weaken the
structure so that it will collapse on arrival to the site.

Maybe I can post a diary of the build to amuse you nice folks by
demonstrating my (lack of) skill using hand tools.

Any tool can be used as a hammer. That should be fun to read, and
more fun to watch the video.

By the way, we'll be
using N3FJP's "Field Day Network Logger" this year, for the first time.
Last year, one of our guys used N3FJP single-station logger for himself
(400+ contacts) and he registered the network version for the club. I like
it. We've had several good trial runs. Find it at http://www.n3fjp.com/.

We like to use N1MM, mostly because it's free, but also because it
took the last half dozen Field Days to train the operators in its use.
http://n1mm.hamdocs.com
We also gave up on running CAT5e all over the site because of the RFI
generated, but also because I got tired of dealing with trashed rolls
of CAT5e as everyone seem to enjoy walking on or tripping over the
CAT5 and coax cables. We tried 802.11g wi-fi, but found that high
power transmitters are really good at blocking the receiver front end
of the wireless cards. Since we don't run more than one station on a
band, there's no issue with dupes. So, no network needed.

(Jeez -- what am I _not_ doing?)

Operating?


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

Hopefully not off topic-link
 

On Thu, 31 May 2012 13:21:50 +1000, "John"
wrote:

Here is the 'T" antenna I referred to. It is totally plastic.
http://www.happywanderer.net.au/page...9&parent2id=24

Not quite totally plastic. Inside the ABS or PVC tubing are some
wires. Most likely, a length of twinlead forming a folded dipole.
While not the most sophisticated antenna available, it's probably
sufficient for campers and caravans.

However, there's a small problem. If you cram an antenna into a PVC
tube, the resonant frequency goes down. There's no set value for the
velocity factor for PVC or ABS, so the resonance change will vary with
manufacturer, doping, and the position of the moon. It's not a big
deal for a low-Q minimal gain and wide band antenna such as this
folded dipole. However, as the gain goes up, the tolerances for
element lengths become more critical. This means that changes in
effective length and resonance caused by PVC or ABS pipe becomes an
important consideration.

"John" wrote in message
.au...
Whilst trying to source a "digital" TV antenna I came across some with all
external surfaces plastic. One was a small yagi with all external surfaces
plastic, hopefully with metal elements embedded. Another a "T" shape made
out of plastic conduit with elements inside conduit.
My question is how do they work?. If they are detecting electrical fields
how does increasing source impedance by 100,s of megohms improve things?.
Capacitive coupling, I suppose at the frequencies involved there would be
some.
If it works as well as all metal why doesn,t every one use it and stop
corrosion?

The distance between the metal elements and the dielectric (PVC or
ABS) is also a consideration. Obviously, if the pipe diameter were
fairly large, the effect of the pipe would be minimal. Similarly, if
the pipe were molded around the conductor, the effect of the pipe
would be maximum.

There's nothing magic about coating an antenna to prevent corrosion.
This is an important consideration for trailers, campers, and
caravans. The antenna has to survive freeway speeds and be fairly
aerodynamic. Coating the antenna with smooth plastic does this.

If you feel ambitious, and happen to have either a grid dip meter or
an antenna analyzer, just build any resonant antenna (probably at VHF
frequencies) and watch the resonant frequency change as a PVC or ABS
pipe is slid over the antenna elements. I build a collinear antenna
out of alternating pieces of coax cable. It tuned perfectly, until I
slid the antenna into a PVC pipe. Tuning changed from 146MHz to a
useless 135MHz. Filling the pipe with urethane foam (fence post
compound), lowered the frequency a few more mHz.



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

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...


snip

Your "easy-sounding plans"
should be an ominous warning of problems to follow.


Sound warning, indeed. I checked some websites devoted to quads and the
measurements are in the ballpark. The 20m version is fairly close to the
ground,, being suspended from a boom at the top of a 30-foot pole. I'm
going to build it and try it in my yard before taking it to FD. The 30-foot
pole is no problem; I had three of them last year for the dipole.


(Jeez -- what am I _not_ doing?)

Operating?


Club duty only really requires about six hour a week, average. I still get
on the air. :-)

"Sal"

Hopefully not off topic
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...



I bet he has an outhouse. Who needs modern plumbing when the negative
15th century stuff has worked so well for 25 centuries?

tom
K0TAR


Grin

"Sal"

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...

A cristal sets has the modern name "rectenna":

No it doesn't, a 'cristal' (sic) set, fails to meet the definition that is
in the first line of the article that you linked to: "A rectenna is a
rectifying antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert
microwave energy into direct current electricity"; in that a 'cristal'
(sic) set does not produce direct current; as it also states later in that
article: "it discards the DC component before sending the signal to the
earphones".

And what the electrons do in such instalation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ectricity.html
"
a.. It is very simple to light a building with power stolen from a nearby
radio transmitter as a farmer once proved with a barn.
b.. 1. Ensure that the building is isolated and near a powerful
transmitter
c.. 2. Fit it with a metal roof (corrugated iron works well)
d.. 3. Connect the lights between the roof and a good earth connection
e.. 4. Bask in the glow
There no the "crystal" or a diode.
What do you think. Will it be working with the diode between the light and
the roof ?

Where come from the electrons?
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
I've a recollection that you've posted your views onto this newsgroup
a
few weeks ago.
I guess that asking you to disregard 19th century understanding and
learn 20th and 21st century understanding is probably an unproductive
approach.

But I hope that you understand that 19th century physics and 21st century
are the same.
In the 20th the all was a top secret.
S*

I don't recall us having nuclear bombs in the 19th century, nor
transistors nor integrated circuits.

All fundamentals were invented in XIX by Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz and Tesla.

The underlying physics may not have changed but man's understanding of it
certainly has.
By analogy, the human body is still the same design as it was in the 15th
/ 16th /17th centuries (and earlier and later). If you need a doctor, will
you go to one practising 21st century medicine or 15th century medicine?
Would you prefer to drive a 21st century car or a 19th century car? Would
you be worried about dropping off the flat earth?
Perhaps you should study the "phlogiston" theory. How about the opposition
that Galileo encountered when he tried to support the theory of Copernicus
that Earth orbits around the Sun? If you'd been around in the time of
Galileo and Copernicus I guess you'd be certain that the Sun orbits the
Earth. After all, that's how Ptolemy said it was and that view lasted a
thousand years or more.

Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy. All known that the planets orbit the Sun.
But the teaching program "said" the "the Sun orbits the Earth."

The same is now.
All physics people know that : "Light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons".
But in teaching program are mystery TEM waves.
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Tesla and Marconi proved that antenna must be grounded and that it
emmits/gains electrons.

But later it was found that they had been wrong, and that only a
strange critter named Szczepan Bialek was still writing about it.

Who found that they had been wrong?

S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Tesla and Marconi proved that antenna must be grounded and that it
emmits/gains electrons.

But later it was found that they had been wrong, and that only a
strange critter named Szczepan Bialek was still writing about it.

Who found that they had been wrong?

That is your task to find out. We all know they were wrong, it is
only you that keeps coming up with that electron emitting bull****.

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy. All known that the planets orbit the Sun.
But the teaching program "said" the "the Sun orbits the Earth."

Not the teaching program in general, only some fairytale book from
the old ages that some people consider authoritative.

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

And what the electrons do in such instalation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ectricity.html
"
a.. It is very simple to light a building with power stolen from a nearby
radio transmitter as a farmer once proved with a barn.
b.. 1. Ensure that the building is isolated and near a powerful
transmitter
c.. 2. Fit it with a metal roof (corrugated iron works well)
d.. 3. Connect the lights between the roof and a good earth connection
e.. 4. Bask in the glow
There no the "crystal" or a diode.
What do you think. Will it be working with the diode between the light and
the roof ?

Where come from the electrons?
S*

Did you read the final comment - "I am afraid that Peter Stuart has been
misled. There is not the slightest chance of "tapping in" to the power being
radiated even from the highest power stations". That came from someone who
ran high power transmitters.

How much power input or output does a transmitter have to have in order for
it to be a "powerful" transmitter? I have a 400W transmitter around six
miles away and a 200kW transmitter around 50 miles away. Which one's signal
will be the stronger at my house?

How accurate are science based reports in the Telegraph?

Regards, Ian.

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy. All known that the planets orbit the Sun.
But the teaching program "said" "the Sun orbits the Earth."

Not the teaching program in general, only some fairytale book from
the old ages that some people consider authoritative.

"Some people" consider the Fresnel's idea and Heaviside's equations as
authoritative.

"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light, while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel

But some people know that Young is right and that: ""Light is the
oscillatory flow of electrons".

This small transverse component is because the light is radiated by dipole.
Radio waves radiated from monopole are the pressure waves (oscillatory
flow).
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

And what the electrons do in such instalation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ectricity.html
"
a.. It is very simple to light a building with power stolen from a
nearby radio transmitter as a farmer once proved with a barn.
b.. 1. Ensure that the building is isolated and near a powerful
transmitter
c.. 2. Fit it with a metal roof (corrugated iron works well)
d.. 3. Connect the lights between the roof and a good earth connection
e.. 4. Bask in the glow
There no the "crystal" or a diode.
What do you think. Will it be working with the diode between the light
and the roof ?

Where come from the electrons?
S*

Did you read the final comment - "I am afraid that Peter Stuart has been
misled. There is not the slightest chance of "tapping in" to the power
being radiated even from the highest power stations". That came from
someone who ran high power transmitters.

How much power input or output does a transmitter have to have in order
for it to be a "powerful" transmitter? I have a 400W transmitter around
six miles away and a 200kW transmitter around 50 miles away. Which one's
signal will be the stronger at my house?

How accurate are science based reports in the Telegraph?

And what is your opinion about Wiki:
"It is now known that this device
operated by emitting electrons from the single electrode through a
combination of field electron emission and thermionic emission. Once
liberated, electrons are strongly repelled by the high electric field near
the electrode during negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nikola_Tesla

I hope that you accept the word "electrode" in place of "antenna's end"
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
This small transverse component is because the light is radiated by dipole.
Radio waves radiated from monopole are the pressure waves (oscillatory
flow).

Do you want to claim that the kind of waves radiated from a transmitter
antenna varies depending on the type of antenna?

So that a dipole antenna produces another kind of wave than a monopole
antenna?

It should then be possible to determine at a distance what kind of
antenna was used to transmit the wave. Can you describe an experiment
to do this determination?

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
This small transverse component is because the light is radiated by
dipole.
Radio waves radiated from monopole are the pressure waves (oscillatory
flow).

Do you want to claim that the kind of waves radiated from a transmitter
antenna varies depending on the type of antenna?

So that a dipole antenna produces another kind of wave than a monopole
antenna?

It should then be possible to determine at a distance what kind of
antenna was used to transmit the wave. Can you describe an experiment
to do this determination?

Faraday wrote in 1846 that to have the polarized waves you must use the two
or more sources.

To have the linear polarization we are using the dipole.
To have the circular polarization we are using the two dipoles.

The above is easy to "determine at a distance what kind of antenna was used
to transmit the wave."

But is the another phenomenon. The Luxembourg effect.
The dipole radiate the doubled frequency.
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

And what is your opinion about Wiki:
"It is now known that this device
operated by emitting electrons from the single electrode through a
combination of field electron emission and thermionic emission. Once
liberated, electrons are strongly repelled by the high electric field near
the electrode during negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV output".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nikola_Tesla

I hope that you accept the word "electrode" in place of "antenna's end"
S*

Once again our resident babbling idiot takes a snippet of something from
Wiki totally out of context, and misinterprets it.

It has been explained to you several times that any electron emmission
from the ends of an antenna is an abnormal situation, is NOT required
for antenna operation, and is an independant phenomena of normal antenna
operation.

It has also been explained to you several times that there are types
of antennas where this never happens.

Yet you keep babbling on like the totally ignorant idiot you are.

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy. All known that the planets orbit the Sun.
But the teaching program "said" "the Sun orbits the Earth."

Not the teaching program in general, only some fairytale book from
the old ages that some people consider authoritative.

"Some people" consider the Fresnel's idea and Heaviside's equations as
authoritative.

"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light, while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel

But some people know that Young is right and that: ""Light is the
oscillatory flow of electrons".

This small transverse component is because the light is radiated by dipole.
Radio waves radiated from monopole are the pressure waves (oscillatory
flow).
S*


Just about everything you said here is total, babbling, nonsense.

You are an idiot and will always be an idiot.

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Faraday wrote in 1846 that to have the polarized waves you must use the
two or more sources.

To have the linear polarization we are using the dipole.
To have the circular polarization we are using the two dipoles.

The above is easy to "determine at a distance what kind of antenna was
used to transmit the wave."

But is the another phenomenon. The Luxembourg effect.
The dipole radiate the doubled frequency.
S*

Ah yes - the famous "is it a dipole or is it a dipole?" test. Of course, it
wouldn't discriminate between a dipole and a yagi (staggered or phased?)

Luxembourg effect? Harmonics?

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

And what the electrons do in such instalation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ectricity.html
"
a.. It is very simple to light a building with power stolen from a
nearby radio transmitter as a farmer once proved with a barn.
b.. 1. Ensure that the building is isolated and near a powerful
transmitter
c.. 2. Fit it with a metal roof (corrugated iron works well)
d.. 3. Connect the lights between the roof and a good earth connection
e.. 4. Bask in the glow
There no the "crystal" or a diode.
What do you think. Will it be working with the diode between the light
and the roof ?

Where come from the electrons?
S*

Did you read the final comment - "I am afraid that Peter Stuart has been
misled. There is not the slightest chance of "tapping in" to the power
being radiated even from the highest power stations". That came from
someone who ran high power transmitters.

How much power input or output does a transmitter have to have in order
for it to be a "powerful" transmitter? I have a 400W transmitter around
six miles away and a 200kW transmitter around 50 miles away. Which one's
signal will be the stronger at my house?

How accurate are science based reports in the Telegraph?

And what is your opinion about Wiki:
"It is now known that this device
operated by emitting electrons from the single electrode through a
combination of field electron emission and thermionic emission. Once
liberated, electrons are strongly repelled by the high electric field near
the electrode during negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV
output".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nikola_Tesla

I hope that you accept the word "electrode" in place of "antenna's end"
S*

My guess is that the quote from Wiki relates to vacuum tubes. Ah yes, it
does. Shall we put the farmer's barn into a large vacuum?


As I said ...

Did you read the final comment - "I am afraid that Peter Stuart has been
misled. There is not the slightest chance of "tapping in" to the power being
radiated even from the highest power stations". That came from someone who
ran high power transmitters.

How much power input or output does a transmitter have to have in order
for it to be a "powerful" transmitter? I have a 400W transmitter around six
miles away and a 200kW transmitter around 50 miles away. Which one's signal
will be the stronger at my house?

How accurate are science based reports in the Telegraph?

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
All fundamentals were invented in XIX by Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz and
Tesla.

Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy. All known that the planets orbit the Sun.
But the teaching program "said" the "the Sun orbits the Earth."
S*
Nothing invented in the 20th century? Nuclear weapons, the Internet, String
Theory? Ptolemy chose the earth centric model. Copernicus disproved it and
developed the sun centric model. Galileo was somewhat unpopular with the
church for supporting the earth centric model.

ttfn, Ian.

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
This small transverse component is because the light is radiated by
dipole.
Radio waves radiated from monopole are the pressure waves (oscillatory
flow).

Do you want to claim that the kind of waves radiated from a transmitter
antenna varies depending on the type of antenna?

So that a dipole antenna produces another kind of wave than a monopole
antenna?

It should then be possible to determine at a distance what kind of
antenna was used to transmit the wave. Can you describe an experiment
to do this determination?

Faraday wrote in 1846 that to have the polarized waves you must use the two
or more sources.

And after 166 have passed, we know that is not correct.

To have the linear polarization we are using the dipole.
To have the circular polarization we are using the two dipoles.

To have circular polarization, we also use helical antennas, something
that didn't exist 166 years ago.

We also have various types of loop, dielectric and waveguide based antennas,
such as the slot antenna, that did not exist 166 years ago.

The above is easy to "determine at a distance what kind of antenna was used
to transmit the wave."

No, it is not, in fact it is impossible to do.

But is the another phenomenon. The Luxembourg effect.
The dipole radiate the doubled frequency.

The Luxemburg-Gorky effect, which is the real name, has nothing to do
with antennas.

This is just more of your babbling idiocy.

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

And what the electrons do in such instalation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ectricity.html
"
a.. It is very simple to light a building with power stolen from a
nearby radio transmitter as a farmer once proved with a barn.
b.. 1. Ensure that the building is isolated and near a powerful
transmitter
c.. 2. Fit it with a metal roof (corrugated iron works well)
d.. 3. Connect the lights between the roof and a good earth connection
e.. 4. Bask in the glow
There no the "crystal" or a diode.
What do you think. Will it be working with the diode between the light
and the roof ?

Where come from the electrons?
S*

Did you read the final comment - "I am afraid that Peter Stuart has been
misled. There is not the slightest chance of "tapping in" to the power
being radiated even from the highest power stations". That came from
someone who ran high power transmitters.

How much power input or output does a transmitter have to have in order
for it to be a "powerful" transmitter? I have a 400W transmitter around
six miles away and a 200kW transmitter around 50 miles away. Which one's
signal will be the stronger at my house?

How accurate are science based reports in the Telegraph?

Regards, Ian.

I share your skepticism, Ian, and I'd like to take it a step further.

There is real math (imagine that!) to address the notion of "stealing power
from a nearby transmitter." Free-space attenuation is given by the formula
20 log Rf + 37dB, where R is the range in Nautical Miles and f is the
frequency in MHz.

True, a close-in VLF transmitter gives good coupling and actually will light
an unconnected fluorescent tube. However, these stations are quite rare and
nobody moves near them to "steal power," since they are built in large open
areas with fences and guards. Need backup plan.

Next best bet: Get within 500 feet of a 50KW AM station, say KFI, AM-640 or
KBOI, AM-670. Per the formula, the coupling loss will be about 13 dB,
making 2500 watts of power available to you at that location. However, to
realize that power, you need an antenna with near unity gain at that
frequency. Any guesses as to how much they cost? Try $Millions. (It's
called a 600-foot tower.) Much better to call your local utility and tell
them how much you appreciate their service. Resolve to be more realistic
about power-robbing schemes.

COMING NEXT ON THE POWER ROBBER CHANNEL: Tap into your neighbor's garden
lights -- it's easy!

73,
"Sal"

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
...

I share your skepticism, Ian, and I'd like to take it a step further.

There is real math (imagine that!) to address the notion of "stealing
power from a nearby transmitter." Free-space attenuation is given by the
formula
20 log Rf + 37dB, where R is the range in Nautical Miles and f is the
frequency in MHz.

True, a close-in VLF transmitter gives good coupling and actually will
light an unconnected fluorescent tube. However, these stations are quite
rare and nobody moves near them to "steal power," since they are built in
large open areas with fences and guards. Need backup plan.

Next best bet: Get within 500 feet of a 50KW AM station, say KFI, AM-640
or KBOI, AM-670. Per the formula, the coupling loss will be about 13 dB,
making 2500 watts of power available to you at that location. However, to
realize that power, you need an antenna with near unity gain at that
frequency. Any guesses as to how much they cost? Try $Millions. (It's
called a 600-foot tower.) Much better to call your local utility and tell
them how much you appreciate their service. Resolve to be more realistic
about power-robbing schemes.

COMING NEXT ON THE POWER ROBBER CHANNEL: Tap into your neighbor's garden
lights -- it's easy!

73,
"Sal"

Hello Sal. Thank you very much for the maths and the workings. Stories of
"getting useable power from a transmitter" are always hard to track to an
accurate source. The nearst I've gotten is a friend who knew of a cottage
with a 33kV power line passing overhead. Seems that some turns of wire were
fitted under the cottage's eaves and some useful power was obtained.
Transfoemer action, I assume.
I've read science fiction stories form the 1930s where "broadcast power" was
in general use. One story had all users switch off their powere receivers so
that the authorities could D/F a wanted person by measuring the strength of
the power field. Ah - unfettered imagination though induction does work when
the power source and appliance are close together.

73, Ian.

Hopefully not off topic-link
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:
"John" wrote in message
. au...
Its why you should never leave a powerpoint switched on. You end up with
a
heap of electrons on the floor.
And a hole under the neutral hole.

Not if you leave a plug in the socket. That'll stop the electrons.
What about the neutrons, protons and croutons?

Croutons are especially nasty when they end up on the floor...

The commercial power in my neighborhood has an asymmetric waveform. Some of
us have been saving the extra electrons on one-half-cycle. We had a power
outage in October of last year and what we're saving now will be used if we
ever suffer another outage.

Hopefully not off topic-link
 

"Sal M. O'Nella" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:
"John" wrote in message
. au...
Its why you should never leave a powerpoint switched on. You end up
with a
heap of electrons on the floor.
And a hole under the neutral hole.

Not if you leave a plug in the socket. That'll stop the electrons.
What about the neutrons, protons and croutons?

Croutons are especially nasty when they end up on the floor...

The commercial power in my neighborhood has an asymmetric waveform. Some
of us have been saving the extra electrons on one-half-cycle.

The extra electrons flow into the ground. Like in your radios.
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
All fundamentals were invented in XIX by Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz and
Tesla.

Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy. All known that the planets orbit the Sun.
But the teaching program "said" the "the Sun orbits the Earth."
S*
Nothing invented in the 20th century? Nuclear weapons, the Internet,
String
Theory?

Fundamentals of radio.

Ptolemy chose the earth centric model.

Today astronomers do the same. The Sun is too hot to make the measurements
from it.

Copernicus disproved it and developed the sun centric model. Galileo was
somewhat unpopular with the church for supporting the earth centric model.

Copernicus and Galileo were trying to change the teaching program.

The same is now.
It is time to replace the EM by Heaviside with Ampere electrodynamics.
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Faraday wrote in 1846 that to have the polarized waves you must use the
two or more sources.

To have the linear polarization we are using the dipole.
To have the circular polarization we are using the two dipoles.

The above is easy to "determine at a distance what kind of antenna was
used to transmit the wave."

But is the another phenomenon. The Luxembourg effect.
The dipole radiate the doubled frequency.
S*

Ah yes - the famous "is it a dipole or is it a dipole?" test. Of course,
it wouldn't discriminate between a dipole and a yagi (staggered or
phased?)

Luxembourg effect? Harmonics?

Harmonics are in string, plate, piano box etc.

Pendelum and LC circuit have the one frequency only.

LW from the dipole mast were (and are) received on MW receivers at exactly
doubled frequency.
S*

Hopefully not off topic
 

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


And what is your opinion about Wiki:
"It is now known that this device
operated by emitting electrons from the single electrode through a
combination of field electron emission and thermionic emission. Once
liberated, electrons are strongly repelled by the high electric field
near
the electrode during negative voltage peaks from the oscillating HV
output".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nikola_Tesla

I hope that you accept the word "electrode" in place of "antenna's end"
S*

My guess is that the quote from Wiki relates to vacuum tubes. Ah yes, it
does. Shall we put the farmer's barn into a large vacuum?

" He also used Geissler tubes"

Do you think that in air no field electron emission?
S*