Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian Jackson" napisal w
wiadomosci
...

In the past, many amateurs did connect coax directly to a dipole.

And what they do if they have the monopole?

Connect it with coaxial transmission line, idiot.

If the monopole has only one radial it is exactly as the your dipole.
Right?

No. A monopole needs many radials, not one. if it has only one radial
the voltage at the end of the radial is the same as on the monopole,
and the whole thing becomes a dipole.

In message , Szczepan Bialek
writes

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
news
In message ,
writes
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian Jackson" napisal w
wiadomosci
...
In message , Rob

writes
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The "dipole" where one element is connected to "live" wire and the
second
to a "ground" is the monopole.

It is your misunderstanding that:

1. amateurs always connect coax directly to a dipole. they don't.
those that are in the know will use a balun.

In the past, many amateurs did connect coax directly to a dipole.

And what they do if they have the monopole?

Connect it with coaxial transmission line, idiot.

I think Szczepan is using the type of logic that concludes, as cats have
four legs and dogs have four legs, then cats are dogs.

Antenna with the four legs is used for the circullar polarization.

Tell us if the your dipole ( the two legs and coax directly to a dipole)
radiate the polarised waves?
S*

As I've said before, I'm convinced that Szczepan is carrying out a
Turing Test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
et al.
--
Ian

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

In Faraday's time the all was measured. The only difference was in the
electrons name. Faraday's name for the electric particle was "nuclei".
S*

Hello Szczepan.
So, if you like old things, are you using a computer from the days of
Faraday?

Regards, Ian.

In message , Rob
writes
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian Jackson" napisal w
wiadomosci
...

In the past, many amateurs did connect coax directly to a dipole.

And what they do if they have the monopole?

Connect it with coaxial transmission line, idiot.

If the monopole has only one radial it is exactly as the your dipole.
Right?

No. A monopole needs many radials, not one. if it has only one radial
the voltage at the end of the radial is the same as on the monopole,
and the whole thing becomes a dipole.

I think we need to avoid Szczepan's black and white (and usually
completely wrong) way of thinking about things. We need to consider
"When does a monopole become a dipole" (or vice versa).

With no actually ground connection, you could have a nominal monopole
with (say) only one radial (eg an extremely badly radiating quarterwave
radial running horizontally at ground level, and a quarterwave radiating
element going vertically (or semi-vertically) upwards. If you then raise
the radial so that it starts to radiate better - or if you raise the
whole antenna system away from the ground - it will then increasingly
become a dipole.

Of course, while a monopole with a single ground-level radial (and no
ground connection) would work quite well, it would not be as good as if
you added more (preferably spread out) radials. And the more radials you
add - especially if any overall radiation from the radials is negligible
- makes the antenna system more definitely a monopole than a dipole.
--
Ian

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
"A dipole antenna is a radio antenna that can be made of a simple wire,
with a center-fed driven element. It consists of two metal conductors of
rod or wire, oriented parallel and collinear with each other (in line with
each other), with a small space between them. "

As you see Your dipoles are mechanically symmetrical.
It can works as the monopole or as the dipole. It depends on electrical
connections.

S*
Good morning Szczepan.
There's a few problems in your quote:
1. it is unattributed
2. it doesn't mention ham radio
3. you, not the quote, have assumed a mechanical symmetry
4. the quote describes (with an obvious and important omission) the
mechanical construction of a dipole. It doesn't describe the electrical
design of a dipole.
5. there's an implicit contradiction within the quote.

Kindest regards, Ian.

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

In Faraday's time the all was measured. The only difference was in the
electrons name. Faraday's name for the electric particle was "nuclei".
S*

Hello Szczepan.
So, if you like old things, are you using a computer from the days of
Faraday?

The same things were done with the paper and pensil.
S*

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
...
In message , Rob
writes
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian Jackson" napisal w
wiadomosci
...

In the past, many amateurs did connect coax directly to a dipole.

And what they do if they have the monopole?

Connect it with coaxial transmission line, idiot.

If the monopole has only one radial it is exactly as the your dipole.
Right?

No. A monopole needs many radials, not one. if it has only one radial
the voltage at the end of the radial is the same as on the monopole,
and the whole thing becomes a dipole.

I think we need to avoid Szczepan's black and white (and usually
completely wrong) way of thinking about things. We need to consider "When
does a monopole become a dipole" (or vice versa).

With no actually ground connection, you could have a nominal monopole with
(say) only one radial (eg an extremely badly radiating quarterwave radial
running horizontally at ground level, and a quarterwave radiating element
going vertically (or semi-vertically) upwards. If you then raise the
radial so that it starts to radiate better - or if you raise the whole
antenna system away from the ground - it will then increasingly become a
dipole.

Real dipole has symmetric voltages not in phase (180).

Of course, while a monopole with a single ground-level radial (and no
ground connection) would work quite well, it would not be as good as if
you added more (preferably spread out) radials. And the more radials you
add - especially if any overall radiation from the radials is negligible -
makes the antenna system more definitely a monopole than a dipole.

I have found that in Polish description the dipole used by radio-amateurs
consists of the radiator and the counterpoise.
It is explained that it is geometrically symmetric.

Does anybody use the real dipole?
S*

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa3 w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian Jackson" napisal w
wiadomosci
...

In the past, many amateurs did connect coax directly to a dipole.

And what they do if they have the monopole?

Connect it with coaxial transmission line, idiot.

If the monopole has only one radial it is exactly as the your dipole.
Right?

No. A monopole needs many radials, not one. if it has only one radial
the voltage at the end of the radial is the same as on the monopole,
and the whole thing becomes a dipole.

"balun definition
electronics
A transformer connected between a balanced source or load and an unbalanced
source or load. A balanced line has two conductors, with equal currents in
opposite directions. The unbalanced line has just one conductor; the current
in it returns via a common ground or earth path. "

The braid of the coax and the radial are connected. They work as the ground
(or counterpoise).

Is the voltage the same as in the live conductor (at the feed points)?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Antenna with the four legs is used for the circullar polarization.

Sometimes.

Tell us if the your dipole ( the two legs and coax directly to a dipole)
radiate the polarised waves?

The type of transmission line used to feed an antenna has absolutely
nothing to do with what a particular antenna is or how the antenna
radiates.

You keep using the phrase "your dipole", which is utter nonsense.

A dipole is a dipole is a dipole.

A dipole will radiate circular polarization if it is not absolutely staight.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian Jackson" napisal w
wiadomosci
...

In the past, many amateurs did connect coax directly to a dipole.

And what they do if they have the monopole?

Connect it with coaxial transmission line, idiot.

If the monopole has only one radial it is exactly as the your dipole.
Right?

Wrong.

You keep using the phrase "your dipole" which is utter nonsense.

A dipole is a dipole is a dipole.

An antenna with two elements at right angles to each other is called a
V dipole and presents a balance load at it's terminals.

And what if somebody have the monopole with the radials?

Since a monopole with radials is an unbalanced load, there is no current
flow on the outside of the coax, idiot.

But your "dipole" is exactly like the monopole with the one radial.

No, it is not; see above idiot.

A monopole with radials presents an unbalanced load at it's terminals
while two elements at right angles to eash other present a balanced load
at it's terminals.

Also, the patterns of the two antennas are totally different.

The twin feeder ensure the electrical symmetry.

Yes, it does, as does a balancing device and coax transmission line,
idiot.

Are you sure?

Positively as was taught in the electromagnetics classes taken to get a
degree in electrical and electronic engineering and verified by about 50
years of building antennas.

What degrees do you have and how many antennas have you built?

I know that in the coax screen something is induced. But I am sure that
such "dipole" is not electrically symmetrical.

He is then assuming that if the coax screen is at zero RF potential
where
it is connected to the other leg of the dipole, then the other leg of
the
dipole is also at zero RF potential (and doesn't radiate). This is
wrong.

I am sure that the other leg radiate almost nothing.

In Hertz time all scientists investigate which part of the Hertz
apparature
radiate.

In Hertz's time the instruments to measure the voltages, currents, and
fields didn't exist.

In Faraday's time the all was measured. The only difference was in the
electrons name. Faraday's name for the electric particle was "nuclei".

Total and utter babbling nonsense as the equipment to make such measurements
was invented long after Faraday died.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot.