Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...
Not sure if the electrons would be packed in bottles (like water) or in
sacks (like coal).

I've said I keep my excess electons (from leakage) in old shoe boxes.
Szczepan said I should instead be using Leyden jars.

File under "NO HOPE."

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

Szczepan seems to have grasped electronics as being the movement of
electrons and has muddled that up with air or liquid flow.

In EM the electricity is like the LIQUID flow ( incompressible and
massles).
In electronics is GAS flow. Electron gas. Electrons have mass.

Do you see the difference between massive GAS and massles LIQUID?
S*
Szczepan, you say that liquids are massles (I assume that you means
massless). This is definitely wrong. Thanks for the laugh.
Regards, Ian.


Imagine what the price of gasoline/petrol would be if it had any mass. Oy!

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

wrote in message
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The antenna always has the counterpoise:

Where is the counterpoise for these antennna:

A full wave loop antenna

A slot antenna

A horn antenna

For the purposes of the discussion, each antenna is driven by a small,
modular oscillator that has no chassis or metalwork of any kind and is
located half way between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy, i.e. it
is about 1,250,000 million light years from anything.



.... which certainly explains the shipping delays that have been plaguing
eBay, lately.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Ian" wrote in message
..

snip

Wonder what would happen if he plugged his computer into a DC supply
rather than an AC supply?
73, Ian.

He's be a bother to the fire department, not us.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
If it were true, an antenna
would be a nonlinear element that would cause intermodulation. As we
don't see that happen on a well-designed antenna (it *does* happen when
there are bad contacts with diode-effect in the antenna), we know that
an antenna by itself cannot be nonlinear and so there cannot be a net
flow of electrons.

The net flow of electrons is from the counterpoise to end of antenna.
S*

How do you explain that there is no intermodulation as a result of
the nonlinearity of the antenna that you claim?

I am here to learn.

Lately I have learn from Bilou:
"In such cases it is convenient to put the things to their limits.
Imagine the diameter of one half is infinite.
You now have a quarter wave over a ground plane.A well known case."

It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter wave) with
the counterpoise.

"In the case of very rocky or poorly conducting soil a counterpoise often is
substituted for a buried network of wires. A counterpoise is a network of
wires place above the earth a slight distance and insulated from it, so
arranged to produce a very high capacity to the earth."

So I know now why you all claim that a dipole do not need a ground.

The number of radials is the power dependent. More power radiated more
electrons must be taken from a ground.
Do you agree?
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
If it were true, an antenna
would be a nonlinear element that would cause intermodulation. As we
don't see that happen on a well-designed antenna (it *does* happen when
there are bad contacts with diode-effect in the antenna), we know that
an antenna by itself cannot be nonlinear and so there cannot be a net
flow of electrons.

The net flow of electrons is from the counterpoise to end of antenna.
S*

How do you explain that there is no intermodulation as a result of
the nonlinearity of the antenna that you claim?

I am here to learn.

Please don't wander off the subject and answer the question!
You did not answer the question why there is no intermodulation
in a transmitter antenna, while you claim it is nonlinear.

Lately I have learn from Bilou:
"In such cases it is convenient to put the things to their limits.
Imagine the diameter of one half is infinite.
You now have a quarter wave over a ground plane.A well known case."

It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter wave) with
the counterpoise.

"In the case of very rocky or poorly conducting soil a counterpoise often is
substituted for a buried network of wires. A counterpoise is a network of
wires place above the earth a slight distance and insulated from it, so
arranged to produce a very high capacity to the earth."

So I know now why you all claim that a dipole do not need a ground.

Because a dipole does not need a ground, it is a symmetric antenna which
is not driven relative to ground.

The number of radials is the power dependent. More power radiated more
electrons must be taken from a ground.
Do you agree?
S*

No.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The number of radials is the power dependent. More power radiated more
electrons must be taken from a ground.
Do you agree?
S*
Good morning Szczepan.
Here are two questions for you to ponder:
How many radials are needed for a receiving aerial?
Are liquids massless?

Here is something to learn - the monopole and dipole are two different
aerials.

Regards, Ian.

The voltages inside of the computer is DC / not AC.

If he removed the power supply - it would still work on battery power.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
If it were true, an antenna
would be a nonlinear element that would cause intermodulation. As we
don't see that happen on a well-designed antenna (it *does* happen when
there are bad contacts with diode-effect in the antenna), we know that
an antenna by itself cannot be nonlinear and so there cannot be a net
flow of electrons.

The net flow of electrons is from the counterpoise to end of antenna.
S*

How do you explain that there is no intermodulation as a result of
the nonlinearity of the antenna that you claim?

I am here to learn.

No, you are obviously not here to learn.

No matter what you are told from people who have actually been dealing
with antenna systems from years, your response continues to be babbling
nonsense and quotes from century old literature that has long ago proven
to be false.

Lately I have learn from Bilou:
"In such cases it is convenient to put the things to their limits.
Imagine the diameter of one half is infinite.
You now have a quarter wave over a ground plane.A well known case."

Babble.

It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter wave) with
the counterpoise.

No, it doesn not mean that.

"In the case of very rocky or poorly conducting soil a counterpoise often is
substituted for a buried network of wires. A counterpoise is a network of
wires place above the earth a slight distance and insulated from it, so
arranged to produce a very high capacity to the earth."

This is just a random factoid dealing with a particular situation for
a particular antenna type and NOT true in general.

So I know now why you all claim that a dipole do not need a ground.

No, you do not know anything.

A dipole does NOT need a ground.

The number of radials is the power dependent. More power radiated more
electrons must be taken from a ground.
Do you agree?

No, this is babbling nonsense.

Radials are only required for an end fed monopole.

The number of radial required is dependant on the ground conductivity and
totally independant of power.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

The number of radials is the power dependent. More power radiated more
electrons must be taken from a ground.
Do you agree?
S*
Good morning Szczepan.
Here are two questions for you to ponder:
How many radials are needed for a receiving aerial?

It is power dependent.

Are liquids massless?

Ask Heaviside.

Here is something to learn - the monopole and dipole are two different
aerials.

I did:
"The dipole antenna, which is the basis for most antenna designs, is a
balanced component, with equal but opposite voltages and currents applied at
its two terminals through a balanced transmission line (or to a coaxial
transmission line through a so-called balun)."

The dipole antenna is the two monopoles.

" The vertical antenna, on the other hand, is a monopole antenna. It is
typically connected to the inner conductor of a coaxial transmission line
(or a matching network); the shield of the transmission line is connected to
ground."

If the antenna has the two legs and the one leg is connected to the shield
of the coax we have the monopole.

"In this way, the ground (or any large conductive surface) plays the role of
the second conductor of a dipole, thereby forming a complete circuit.[3]
Since monopole antennas rely on a conductive ground, a so-called grounding
structure may be employed to provide a better ground contact to the earth or
which itself acts as a ground plane to perform that function regardless of
(or in absence of) an actual contact with the earth." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)

So: " It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter
wave) with the counterpoise." is right.
Do you agree?
S*




Regards, Ian.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

"Rob" napisa3 w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
If it were true, an antenna
would be a nonlinear element that would cause intermodulation. As we
don't see that happen on a well-designed antenna (it *does* happen
when
there are bad contacts with diode-effect in the antenna), we know that
an antenna by itself cannot be nonlinear and so there cannot be a net
flow of electrons.

The net flow of electrons is from the counterpoise to end of antenna.
S*

How do you explain that there is no intermodulation as a result of
the nonlinearity of the antenna that you claim?

I am here to learn.

Please don't wander off the subject and answer the question!
You did not answer the question why there is no intermodulation
in a transmitter antenna, while you claim it is nonlinear.

All is linear in the textbooks (necesary simplification).
In reality all is nonlinear.

Lately I have learn from Bilou:
"In such cases it is convenient to put the things to their limits.
Imagine the diameter of one half is infinite.
You now have a quarter wave over a ground plane.A well known case."

It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter wave)
with
the counterpoise.

"In the case of very rocky or poorly conducting soil a counterpoise often
is
substituted for a buried network of wires. A counterpoise is a network of
wires place above the earth a slight distance and insulated from it, so
arranged to produce a very high capacity to the earth."

So I know now why you all claim that a dipole do not need a ground.

Because a dipole does not need a ground, it is a symmetric antenna which
is not driven relative to ground.

Do you mean the antenna with the two legs where the one leg is connected to
the shield of a coax?

The number of radials is the power dependent. More power radiated more
electrons must be taken from a ground.
Do you agree?
S*

No.

For what are sometime the 120 radials?
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

I am here to learn.

It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter wave)
with
the counterpoise.

No, it doesn not mean that.

"In the case of very rocky or poorly conducting soil a counterpoise often
is
substituted for a buried network of wires. A counterpoise is a network of
wires place above the earth a slight distance and insulated from it, so
arranged to produce a very high capacity to the earth."


Radials are only required for an end fed monopole.

The number of radial required is dependant on the ground conductivity and
totally independant of power.

""In the case of very rocky or poorly conducting soil a counterpoise often
is substituted for a buried network of wires".

The number of buried radials or that above ground (counterpoise) is power
dependent.
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Please don't wander off the subject and answer the question!
You did not answer the question why there is no intermodulation
in a transmitter antenna, while you claim it is nonlinear.

All is linear in the textbooks (necesary simplification).
In reality all is nonlinear.

So you think the electron emission from your transmitter antenna is
something not in the textbooks but still happening in reality?

Because a dipole does not need a ground, it is a symmetric antenna which
is not driven relative to ground.

Do you mean the antenna with the two legs where the one leg is connected to
the shield of a coax?

That is not a correct way to feed a dipole!
There must be a balun between the coax and the dipole.

The number of radials is the power dependent. More power radiated more
electrons must be taken from a ground.
Do you agree?
S*

No.

For what are sometime the 120 radials?
S*

To provide a return for the HF current being fed into an unbalanced
vertical. Not to provide electrons to be emitted.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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

"Rob" napisa3 w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
If it were true, an antenna
would be a nonlinear element that would cause intermodulation. As we
don't see that happen on a well-designed antenna (it *does* happen
when
there are bad contacts with diode-effect in the antenna), we know that
an antenna by itself cannot be nonlinear and so there cannot be a net
flow of electrons.

The net flow of electrons is from the counterpoise to end of antenna.
S*

How do you explain that there is no intermodulation as a result of
the nonlinearity of the antenna that you claim?

I am here to learn.

Please don't wander off the subject and answer the question!
You did not answer the question why there is no intermodulation
in a transmitter antenna, while you claim it is nonlinear.

All is linear in the textbooks (necesary simplification).
In reality all is nonlinear.

This is meaningless babble.

While lower level, i.e. grade school textbooks, may contain simplifications,
university level textbooks do not.

I would bet heavily that you have never read any textbook beyond the grade
school level.


Lately I have learn from Bilou:
"In such cases it is convenient to put the things to their limits.
Imagine the diameter of one half is infinite.
You now have a quarter wave over a ground plane.A well known case."

It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter wave)
with
the counterpoise.

"In the case of very rocky or poorly conducting soil a counterpoise often
is
substituted for a buried network of wires. A counterpoise is a network of
wires place above the earth a slight distance and insulated from it, so
arranged to produce a very high capacity to the earth."

So I know now why you all claim that a dipole do not need a ground.

Because a dipole does not need a ground, it is a symmetric antenna which
is not driven relative to ground.

Do you mean the antenna with the two legs where the one leg is connected to
the shield of a coax?

There is nothing that requires a dipole to be connected to coax.

In fact many dipoles are connected to balanced line all the way to the
transmitter.

Those that are connected with coax usually have device between the coax
and the dipole to convert from unbalance to balanced.

Again you show you know nothing about antennas or the real world.


The number of radials is the power dependent. More power radiated more
electrons must be taken from a ground.
Do you agree?
S*

No.

For what are sometime the 120 radials?
S*

One more time, the number of radials needed for good perfomance for an end
fed monopole, and ONLY an end fed monopole, depends ONLY on the ground
conductivity.

Dipoles do NOT need radials.

Yagis do NOT need radials.

Loops do not need radials.

Slots do not need radials.

Horns do not need radials.

Rhombics do not need radials.

Stermba curtains do not need radials.

Log-periodics do not need radials.

Helicals do not need radials.

Only end fed monopoles need radials.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The number of radials is the power dependent. More power radiated more
electrons must be taken from a ground.
Do you agree?
S*
Good morning Szczepan.
Here are two questions for you to ponder:
How many radials are needed for a receiving aerial?

It is power dependent.

No, it is not, it is ground conductivity dependant and has nothing to do
with power and they are ONLY needed for end fed monopoles.

Are liquids massless?

Ask Heaviside.

Heaviside has been dead for 87 years, but he did live long enough to
learn that there is no such thing as a massless liquid.

You will never live long enough to understand that.

Here is something to learn - the monopole and dipole are two different
aerials.

I did:
"The dipole antenna, which is the basis for most antenna designs, is a
balanced component, with equal but opposite voltages and currents applied at
its two terminals through a balanced transmission line (or to a coaxial
transmission line through a so-called balun)."

OK so far.

The dipole antenna is the two monopoles.

Now you are starting to drift off into la-la land again.

" The vertical antenna, on the other hand, is a monopole antenna. It is
typically connected to the inner conductor of a coaxial transmission line
(or a matching network); the shield of the transmission line is connected to
ground."

OK again.

If the antenna has the two legs and the one leg is connected to the shield
of the coax we have the monopole.

No, you do not.

You glossed right over the part in your own qoute that says: "or to a coaxial
transmission line through a so-called balun".

"In this way, the ground (or any large conductive surface) plays the role of
the second conductor of a dipole, thereby forming a complete circuit.[3]
Since monopole antennas rely on a conductive ground, a so-called grounding
structure may be employed to provide a better ground contact to the earth or
which itself acts as a ground plane to perform that function regardless of
(or in absence of) an actual contact with the earth." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)

And again, you don't get it.

The above quote is talking about end fed monopoles and ONLY end fed
monopoles and has NOTHING to do with dipoles.


So: " It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter
wave) with the counterpoise." is right.
Do you agree?

No.

Once again you show you are incapable of reading and understanding your
own quotes.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Channel Jumper wrote:

"Sal M. O'Nella[_2_ Wrote:
;792869"]"Ian" wrote in message
..

snip
-
Wonder what would happen if he plugged his computer into a DC supply
rather than an AC supply?
73, Ian.-

He's be a bother to the fire department, not us.

The voltages inside of the computer is DC / not AC.

If he removed the power supply - it would still work on battery power.

For a laptop, but not for a computer in general unless you mean a bunch
of batteries for all the various voltages.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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

I am here to learn.

It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter wave)
with
the counterpoise.

No, it doesn not mean that.

"In the case of very rocky or poorly conducting soil a counterpoise often
is
substituted for a buried network of wires. A counterpoise is a network of
wires place above the earth a slight distance and insulated from it, so
arranged to produce a very high capacity to the earth."


Radials are only required for an end fed monopole.

The number of radial required is dependant on the ground conductivity and
totally independant of power.

""In the case of very rocky or poorly conducting soil a counterpoise often
is substituted for a buried network of wires".

OK so far for an end fed monopole and only for an end fed monopole.

The number of buried radials or that above ground (counterpoise) is power
dependent.

No, it is not, the number of radial required is dependant on the ground
conductivity and totally independant of power.

There are hundreds of studies that show you are an utter idiot.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The number of buried radials or that above ground (counterpoise) is power
dependent.
S*

An amusing guess and totally wrong.
What happens when the aerial is used with a receive-only station?

Ian.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On 7/4/2012 11:15 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Joel dipole has the two legs.
One of them is the antenna and the second the counterpoise.


Tell us which is which. Without your usual nonsense.

I know I'm asking the impossible here, but maybe just this once you
could answer a question clearly and directly.

And lipsticked pigs may fly at light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On 7/5/2012 2:41 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:


I am here to learn.

A statement with less truth would be hard to find. You are most
definitely NOT here to learn.

tom
K0TAR

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On 7/5/2012 11:39 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

So: " It means that a dipole fed from a coax is the monopole (a quarter
wave) with the counterpoise." is right.
Do you agree?
S*

No.

tom
K0TAR

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On 7/5/2012 11:53 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The number of buried radials or that above ground (counterpoise) is power
dependent.
S*

Most perfectly incorrect. The power level has no relation whatsoever.

The number of radials is related to the efficiency.

tom
K0TAR

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 7/4/2012 11:15 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Joel dipole has the two legs.
One of them is the antenna and the second the counterpoise.


Tell us which is which. Without your usual nonsense.

The red one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipolefeedrad.png

I know I'm asking the impossible here, but maybe just this once you could
answer a question clearly and directly.

I assume that Joel dipole is feed with a coax. Because: "Many people have
had success in feeding a dipole directly with a coaxial cable feed rather
than a ladder-line. "

Is it the Joel case?

Do you agree that such "dipole" is the monopole?
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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


Those that are connected with coax usually have device between the coax
and the dipole to convert from unbalance to balanced.

But the only one leg is red:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png

Again you show you know nothing about antennas or the real world.

I am here to learn.
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


The red one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipolefeedrad.png

I know I'm asking the impossible here, but maybe just this once you could
answer a question clearly and directly.

I assume that Joel dipole is feed with a coax. Because: "Many people have
had success in feeding a dipole directly with a coaxial cable feed rather
than a ladder-line. "

Is it the Joel case?

Do you agree that such "dipole" is the monopole?
S*

Good morning Szczepan . Dipoles and monopoles are two different aerials. If
you do not understand the difference then you need to try harder to
understand what you are being told rather than disregarding it.

Regards, Ian.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

So you think the electron emission from your transmitter antenna is
something not in the textbooks but still happening in reality?

In reality the electrons escape from all charged bodies.

Because a dipole does not need a ground, it is a symmetric antenna which
is not driven relative to ground.

Do you mean the antenna with the two legs where the one leg is connected
to
the shield of a coax?

That is not a correct way to feed a dipole!
There must be a balun between the coax and the dipole.

The balun only improve the monopole . The only one leg is red (radiate):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


The balun only improve the monopole . The only one leg is red (radiate):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png
S*

Good morning again Szczepan. The caption to that diagram is "Coax and
antenna both acting as radiators instead of only the antenna."
Note carefully - coax AND antenna BOTH acting as radiators. Directly below
that illustration is another one showing the usual operation of a dipole.

Regards, Ian.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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

So you think the electron emission from your transmitter antenna is
something not in the textbooks but still happening in reality?

In reality the electrons escape from all charged bodies.

So you do know that it is not related to transmitting a signal, after all?

Because a dipole does not need a ground, it is a symmetric antenna which
is not driven relative to ground.

Do you mean the antenna with the two legs where the one leg is connected
to
the shield of a coax?

That is not a correct way to feed a dipole!
There must be a balun between the coax and the dipole.

The balun only improve the monopole . The only one leg is red (radiate):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png
S*

The color someone used in an illustrative diagram has no significance
in the operation of the antenna.

Both the halves of the dipole are involved in the radiation.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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

So you think the electron emission from your transmitter antenna is
something not in the textbooks but still happening in reality?

In reality the electrons escape from all charged bodies.

Because a dipole does not need a ground, it is a symmetric antenna which
is not driven relative to ground.

Do you mean the antenna with the two legs where the one leg is connected
to
the shield of a coax?

That is not a correct way to feed a dipole!
There must be a balun between the coax and the dipole.

The balun only improve the monopole . The only one leg is red (radiate):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png
S*

Once again you totally fail to understand your own link.

BOTH elements radiate equally as shown by theory and by measurement.

You are a babbling idiot.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


Those that are connected with coax usually have device between the coax
and the dipole to convert from unbalance to balanced.

But the only one leg is red:

Which means nothing by taking the image out of context.

If you were to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna and actually
understand what it says, you would then understand why one side is shown as
red and one side is shown as blue.

You would also learn that BOTH sides are radiating equally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png

Again you show you know nothing about antennas, the real world or the
links you post.

I am here to learn.
S*

An outright lie.

If you were here to learn, you would not be arguing with people who have
spent decades building and using antennas in the real world, people ranging
in education from knowledgable hobbyiests to degreed engineers and scientists.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 7/4/2012 11:15 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Joel dipole has the two legs.
One of them is the antenna and the second the counterpoise.


Tell us which is which. Without your usual nonsense.

The red one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipolefeedrad.png

I know I'm asking the impossible here, but maybe just this once you could
answer a question clearly and directly.

I assume that Joel dipole is feed with a coax. Because: "Many people have
had success in feeding a dipole directly with a coaxial cable feed rather
than a ladder-line. "

What is a "Joel dipole"?

Is it the Joel case?

Do you agree that such "dipole" is the monopole?
S*

No, you are an idiot.

The antenna type is NOT determined by the feedline.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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


Do you mean the antenna with the two legs where the one leg is
connected
to
the shield of a coax?

That is not a correct way to feed a dipole!
There must be a balun between the coax and the dipole.

The balun only improve the monopole . The only one leg is red (radiate):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png

The color someone used in an illustrative diagram has no significance
in the operation of the antenna.

Both the halves of the dipole are involved in the radiation.

If it is feed by the two wires transmission line:
http://www.deltadx.net/ABCDx/Sections/Antennas.htm
http://www.deltadx.net/ABCDx/Section...le-Ladder2.gif
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


Do you mean the antenna with the two legs where the one leg is
connected
to
the shield of a coax?

That is not a correct way to feed a dipole!
There must be a balun between the coax and the dipole.

The balun only improve the monopole . The only one leg is red (radiate):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png

The color someone used in an illustrative diagram has no significance
in the operation of the antenna.

Both the halves of the dipole are involved in the radiation.

If it is feed by the two wires transmission line:
http://www.deltadx.net/ABCDx/Sections/Antennas.htm
http://www.deltadx.net/ABCDx/Section...le-Ladder2.gif
S*

Did you notice there is no connection to ground required?

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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


I am here to learn.
S*

An outright lie.

If you were here to learn, you would not be arguing with people who have
spent decades building and using antennas in the real world, people
ranging
in education from knowledgable hobbyiests to degreed engineers and
scientists.

All the links I quote are wrote by "people who have
spent decades building and using antennas in the real world, people ranging
in education from knowledgable hobbyiests to degreed engineers and
scientists."

Are you one of them?
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


Do you mean the antenna with the two legs where the one leg is
connected
to
the shield of a coax?

That is not a correct way to feed a dipole!
There must be a balun between the coax and the dipole.

The balun only improve the monopole . The only one leg is red (radiate):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png

The color someone used in an illustrative diagram has no significance
in the operation of the antenna.

Both the halves of the dipole are involved in the radiation.

If it is feed by the two wires transmission line:
http://www.deltadx.net/ABCDx/Sections/Antennas.htm
http://www.deltadx.net/ABCDx/Section...le-Ladder2.gif
S*

Not "if", moron, always.

READ your own link.

If a dipole is fed with coax AND if there is NO balun device, then common
mode current flows on the outside of the coax and the coax ALSO radiates.

If a dipole is fed with coax AND if there IS a balun device, then there
is no feedline radiation.

In either case, the dipole radiates from both halves.

That is what your link says happens but you are too stupid to read it and
can only look at the pictures and misinterpret what they mean.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


I am here to learn.
S*

An outright lie.

If you were here to learn, you would not be arguing with people who have
spent decades building and using antennas in the real world, people
ranging
in education from knowledgable hobbyiests to degreed engineers and
scientists.

All the links I quote are wrote by "people who have
spent decades building and using antennas in the real world, people ranging
in education from knowledgable hobbyiests to degreed engineers and
scientists."

That may be true, however you appear to be too stupid to understand any of
them and just misinterpret the pictures.

Your latest babbling nonsense about the page at:
http://www.deltadx.net/ABCDx/Sections/Antennas.htm

proves you just look at the pictures and either don't read or don't understand
the text.

Are you one of them?
S*

Am I one of what?

If you mean what are MY qualifications to call you a babbling idiot, I have
been building and using antennas for about 50 years and have a degree in
Electrical and Electronic Engineering.

How long have you been building and using antennas and what degrees do
you have?

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On 7/6/2012 3:46 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci

Do you agree that such "dipole" is the monopole?
S*


Absolutely not.

tom
K0TAR

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On 7/6/2012 3:58 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The balun only improve the monopole . The only one leg is red (radiate):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png
S*

You truly understand nothing about how feedlines and antennas work. It
is worthless trying to explain them to you because you also refuse to learn.

tom
K0TAR

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On 7/6/2012 3:52 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan wrote:


Those that are connected with coax usually have device between the coax
and the dipole to convert from unbalance to balanced.

But the only one leg is red:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...ebandbalun.png

Again you show you know nothing about antennas or the real world.

I am here to learn.
S*



More false words have ever been spoken. You are like Hitler in 1939.

tom
K0TAR

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
On 7/6/2012 3:46 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci

Do you agree that such "dipole" is the monopole?
S*


Absolutely not.

tom
K0TAR


Is this guy the ghost of Allen Funt? He has set up such an improbable
situation with his nonsense that we are unable to grasp it, so we suspend
disbelief.

"Sal"