"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*

"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci
news
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*

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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?)

"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)