"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


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."

Note that it reads "... The PRESENT general OPINION ...". That was in 1867
and was an opinion so presumably it was neither a theory nor a proven fact.
We have the benefit of research made over the intervening 145 years.

It is probably unwise to quote from books / articles / papers if you do not
understand them.

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

"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci
news
On Mon, 28 May 2012 19:06:03 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

Whilst trying to source a "digital" TV antenna I came across some with
all
external surfaces plastic.

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.

I believe he said plastic, not glass or ice.

Is your theory that if you repeat the same garbage over and over,
eventually someone will believe it?

I might as well be part of the problem, instead of the solution.
Adding to your electron belching antenna theory, such antennas should
gain and lose mass as they transmit and receive electrons. If we have
(for example), an antenna with 1A of RF current, that's equal to 1
coulomb/second. 1 coulomb is:
6.24x10^18 electrons
which should be belching:
9.11*10^-29 g/electron * 6.25*10^18 coulombs/sec
= 5.69*10^-9 grams/sec
If your bogus theory is correct, you should be able to weigh your
antenna and see it loses some mass in transmit, and gains some in
receive.

" 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. "

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*

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. "

The key phrase here is "usually idealized"; there are many examples of
systems that don't have anything that could even remotely be considered
a "ground".


All antennas are grounded

Totally false.

You are a babbling idiot.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

"Szczepan Bialek" 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.

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.

tom
K0TAR

On 28 May 2012 07:39:06 GMT, Rob wrote:

John wrote:
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

I think we'll leave this one to mr Bialek to answer...


Hahahaa, yes, and it worked :-)

w.

"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*

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

Who is the authors of yours?
S*