"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*

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)

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.

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

"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.

"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*

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****.

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 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.