Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Also, if the earth is absorbing your electrons, something should be
gaining a rather large positive charge as a result of the
transmission. Where is the positive charge?

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

It is a pity that you are not a radio amateur yourself.
If so, you could see with your own eyes (or feel with your own hands)
that this is not true, and so the whole theory is incorrect.

But maybe you have a cellphone. Try making a long call while you stand
on one of those glass tables that they use in static electricity
experiments.
See if you develop a positive charge while making that call.
(and not doing other things like stroking your cat)

Hopefully not off topic
 

"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.

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.

Regards, Ian.

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:12:00 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

" Inelectronic 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. "

What does this have to do with measuring the weight change in an
antenna that allegedly is transmitting electrons? Electrons have
mass. Transmit enough of them and you'll loose mass. Receive enough
electrons, and your mythical antenna should gain mass.

Radio transmitter is an electron pump.

No, it is not.

You are an idiot.

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

Yes, it does.

You are an idiot.

Also, if the earth is absorbing your electrons, something should be
gaining a rather large positive charge as a result of the
transmission. Where is the positive charge?

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

No, it does not.

You are an idiot.

While we're at it, there are many ways to detect electrons. One of
them is with a phosophor screen, that will light up when hit by
electrons. Some how, waving my HT near the phosphor screen of my
oscilloscope fails to detect your alleged electrons. Could you
perhaps offer a better way to detect the electrons allegedly radiating
from an antenna?

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

Irrelevant babble.

You are an idiot.

All antennas are grounded and you should be able to weigh the Earth
because
it gain and lose mass as they transmit and receive electrons"

I see. If I'm standing on the ground, I can't be weighed. Well, my
bathroom scale is sitting on the ground and works just fine measuring
my weight.

My HT antenna isn't grounded. Neither are any of the dipoles on my
roof. I presume you're suggesting that they don't work.

They are connected to the mass (chassis).

Many things do not have a chassis or anything that could even remotely be
called a chassis.

You are an idiot.

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.

No, it is not.

You are an idiot.


Who is the authors of yours?
S*

Modern science.

And you are an idiot.

Hopefully not off topic
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 5/29/2012 5:32 PM, Ian wrote:
"Szczepan wrote in message
...


All antennas are grounded and you should be able to weigh the Earth
because it gain and lose mass as they transmit and receive electrons"
S*
It is incorrect to say that all aerials are grounded. Dipoles, quads and
yagis aren't grounded.



And neither are spacecraft antennas no matter what the type.

The Earth is in space and the spacecraft also.
The same is with aircrafts and autos.

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

No, they are not.

You are a babbling idiot.

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.
Radio waves in front of the person is radiated, radio waves behind the person is blocked to a small extent because of the water in the persons body.
This is the reason why Rabbit Ears antenna's do not work in concrete apartment buildings with people moving around the room.

The person who is walking around blocks some of the reception - especially in the higher frequency ranges because anything one or more wavelengths in size can and will block a signal.

I'm surprised that no one caugth the foopaugh that the origional answer giver had made when he described how a antenna works.

The reflector has to be a certain size for a certain wavelength and there is only one driven element.
The other elements - also known as directors - gathers the signal and directs them backwards in the array towards the reflector.
Each director gathers the same amount of signal as a dipole and each director adds gain to the antenna at the expense of beam width.

The only way to increase gain is to give up something somewhere else.

If you stack two antenna's one above the other - one wavelength apart - and build phasing lines, each antenna will only agument the other by a gain factor of 2.85 - reguardless of how much gain the origional antenna had.

If you stack two beam antenna's, one or more wavelengths apart - the apature becomes smaller - hence if you put enough of them together, it is as if you were trying to look through a straw while driving an automobile.

The beam width becomes very narrow, while increasing forward gain to the point of infany.

With a UHF signal - eventually when it runs out of things to bounce off of - it just travels in a straight line - out into space, never to be recovered again.

I think the OP was asking about receiving antenna's and not transmitting antenna's.

A receiving antenna - works best when it is cut to one individual frequency, but those antenna's tends to be more expensive, not less, because they have to be purpose built. The size and spacing has to be more exact to get the results the buyer is looking for.

While a VHF antenna, with the use of phasing lines, a person can make a very broadbanded antenna and it will still work up to the length of the longest combined element.
When the elements are too long, the antenna can look back through the array and can match the wavelength to the elements in the array...

Hopefully not off topic
 

I was sort of hoping you might be able to
give us a Make and/or Model number so
we could have a peek at it (assuming we could
find it on the net somewhere)..

Irv VE6BP


"John" wrote in message
. au...
Many thanks for your time Gents, The antennas were intended for outdoor
use and constant handling. being encased in hard plastic obviously
enhances those functions. My experience has been at the other end of the
spectrum so to speak and I (incorrectly) assumed an antenna picks up an
electrical signal. Putting a layer of insulating plastic on it seemed
contradictory. If antenna is detecting magnetic signals obviously a
different story.
When I mentioned impedance I mislead you. Wasnt referring to antenna
impedance but the impedance looking back form the recieving antenna to the
signal source ( thats what us old analogue designers do, Norton/Thevenin
equivalent circuits etc !!!!) and the effect on that a layer of plastic
has.
Your combined efforts have answered a lot of my questions, thanks for your
time.
Cheers
John
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:
"John" wrote in message
. au...
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?.

Pardon? The coating or conduit shouldn't affect the impedance of the
antenna. The radio signal should pass through the plastic and hit the
metal
antenna element.

Apparently you have missed the interesting discussions with our Polish
friend.

Hopefully not off topic
 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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


--
# 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
 

On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:08:04 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

And neither are spacecraft antennas no matter what the type.

The Earth is in space and the spacecraft also.

The earth and spacecraft are floating around in a vacuum, same as
between your ears. I think you'll find it rather difficult to
demonstrate a conduction path through a vacuum for your grounded
antenna theory. Besides, if outer space did provide a conduction
path, it would also short out the antenna elements.

The same is with aircrafts and autos.

Aircraft and autos do not operate in outer space.

All transmitters and receivers are connected with the mass.

What mass of outer space? There is roughly 1 hydrogen atom per cubic
centimeter in outer space. That's not much mass and certainly not
enough to ionize and produce a conductive path.

--
# 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
 

Gents,
Sorry about delay in getting back. After I sent first
message my ISP fell off the perch and only now has come back on. Funny how
you can get a response from a voluntary organisation within hours but
somebody you have a contract with takes days!.
I havnt read all your replies yet but will do now, sounds from the
numbers there is a controversy.
Once again thank you for your expertise.
Regards
John



"Boomer" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2012 12:06 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
. 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.

Yes. The frequency do the work.

Rob wrote: "Apparently you have missed the interesting discussions with
our
Polish
friend."

It was not the discussion. I only citate the Giants:
"In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJd...page&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
forward motions of particles of aether."
If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive
motion
of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".

So no problem for electrons to flow through the plastic if it is matched
to
the frequencies.
For example,You must use the different type of glass for different wave
length.

The ice is O.K. for the RF but the water not.

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.

It is too off the teaching programs.
S*


Please tell us what meds you are on. That would help us understand your
theories.

Michael

Hopefully not off topic
 

On 5/30/2012 12:42 PM, Channel Jumper wrote:
'Jeff Liebermann[_2_ Wrote:
;791197']On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:12:00 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:


My HT antenna isn't grounded. Neither are any of the dipoles on my
roof. I presume you're suggesting that they don't work.

--


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.
Radio waves in front of the person is radiated, radio waves behind the
person is blocked to a small extent because of the water in the persons
body.
This is the reason why Rabbit Ears antenna's do not work in concrete
apartment buildings with people moving around the room.

The person who is walking around blocks some of the reception -
especially in the higher frequency ranges because anything one or more
wavelengths in size can and will block a signal.


Not quite right, since you don't have to actually "block" the signal for
it to happen, but Mr. Blaupunkt wouldn't have a clue anyway. It's more
about the whole wavefront, amplitude of the parts of same, phase, and
interaction with the surrounding conductive and absorptive environment.
Some of which can be alive, filled with salt water, and move.

tom
K0TAR