Ian wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2012 1:09 PM, wrote:

Then why not just ignore him?

We (the group excluding Szczepan) have some good discussions.
Szczepan can be amusing in the views he puts forward. I can't work out
whether he is trying to tease us or really is confused.

I suppose there's also the hope that Szczepan might read and understand the
information that some of us are showing him. It's a bit like trying to
explain radio to a youngster except that a youngster will listen and learn.

I think it is not productive to reply to every posting with "you are
a babbling idiot". That is not going to convince him that he is, and
it just annoys the others.

When you ask him real questions, he either does not answer or he digs up
some prehistoric finding that may have been accurate at that time, but
can easily be disproven today.

For example, his theory that an antenna acts like a vacuum diode, emitting
electrons during one phase of the HF voltage and not taking them back
during the next phase, clearly must be wrong. 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.

He cannot dispute that so he wanders of in a different direction.

"Rob" wrote in message
...

I think it is not productive to reply to every posting with "you are
a babbling idiot". That is not going to convince him that he is, and
it just annoys the others.

When you ask him real questions, he either does not answer or he digs up
some prehistoric finding that may have been accurate at that time, but
can easily be disproven today.

For example, his theory that an antenna acts like a vacuum diode, emitting
electrons during one phase of the HF voltage and not taking them back
during the next phase, clearly must be wrong. 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.

He cannot dispute that so he wanders of in a different direction.

Hello Rob.
I can't answer your point about the "babbling idiot" postings as I'm not the
one who makes them.
Szczepan reminds me of an elderly relative who grew up in the 1920s when
electronics was large components on wooden baseboards. They seemed to be
developed from mechanical engineering (see if and understand it). It was a
challenge to get the relative to understand that any progress had been made
since the days of valves. Szczepan seems to have grasped electronics as
being the movement of electrons and has muddled that up with air or liquid
flow.
Initially, I hoped that a polite explanation would help him but after a few
weeks I realised that he's not capable of understanding and learning (always
assuming that he isn't an Extra Class licensee having a big laugh - which is
why I enjoy the humour in his postings).
He seems to go around in circles lasting several weeks - I think that the
thoughts in some of his recent postings are similar to ones he made a month
or more ago.

73, Ian.

"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 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.

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"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.

In 1884 Heavisde wrote the EM. He assumed that electricity and magnetism are
like the massless liquid.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"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.

In 1884 Heavisde wrote the EM. He assumed that electricity and magnetism
are like the massless liquid.
S*
Hello Szczepan. Liquids definitely are not massless.

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Ian wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2012 1:09 PM, wrote:

Then why not just ignore him?

We (the group excluding Szczepan) have some good discussions.
Szczepan can be amusing in the views he puts forward. I can't work out
whether he is trying to tease us or really is confused.

I suppose there's also the hope that Szczepan might read and understand
the
information that some of us are showing him. It's a bit like trying to
explain radio to a youngster except that a youngster will listen and
learn.

I think it is not productive to reply to every posting with "you are
a babbling idiot". That is not going to convince him that he is, and
it just annoys the others.

When you ask him real questions, he either does not answer or he digs up
some prehistoric finding that may have been accurate at that time, but
can easily be disproven today.

For example, his theory that an antenna acts like a vacuum diode, emitting
electrons during one phase of the HF voltage and not taking them back
during the next phase, clearly must be wrong.

The antenna always has the counterpoise:
"A counterpoise which consists of one or more wires in a network insulated
from the ground will often reduce loss resistances which might occur when
the quarterwave antenna is connected to poorly conducting earth. The
counterpoise in the case of a network of several wires acts as a condenser
plate with high capacity to earth, with the result of lower loss in the
antenna system; for this reason the counterpoise should be fairly close to
the ground. [See Fig. 1.] "
From: http://www.antennex.com/shack/Dec06/cps.html

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

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*

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

"Rob" napisa3 w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
A real well in soil will be the perfect infinite source of electrons.

A source of electrons is not required. Transmitters use AC (alternating
current) so there is no net flow of electrons.

AC is in a transformer.
In an antenna is the oscillatory flow of electrons. So there is the net
flow of electrons.

"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.[citation needed] 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"

Do not you know that?
S*

If that were true, there would be a DC current into a transmitting antenna
fed only by HF (AC) current.
But of course there is no such DC current. If it were there, it would
mean there is nonlinearity in the antenna and there would be severe
intermodulation.

Always is the "DC" (net electron flow) from the counterpoise to end of an
antenna.
S*

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?

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

If that were true, there would be a DC current into a transmitting antenna
fed only by HF (AC) current.
But of course there is no such DC current. If it were there, it would
mean there is nonlinearity in the antenna and there would be severe
intermodulation.

Always is the "DC" (net electron flow) from the counterpoise to end of an
antenna.
S*

Hello readers. I've had a busy day on the keyboard and my stubby fingers
are rather tired. Anyone else want to try to explain to Szczepan the
differences between DC and AC. Shall we simply say that
DC = direct current and
AC = alternating current
and there's a big and significant difference between "direct" and
"alternating"?
How about
direct = flat road
alternating = road with hills and valleys?
I think that Szczepan may understand "flat", "hills" and "valleys" but I
wouldn't care to bet on it. Maybe he'll start to quote from National
Geographic.
Wonder what would happen if he plugged his computer into a DC supply rather
than an AC supply?
73, Ian.