Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


The braid and the arm are together the counterpoise.

No, they are not, you babbling idiot.

Have you the same voltages on the braid and on the coax "live" wire?

Not without a ballancing device of some sort.

Are the same voltages on the counterpoise and on the arm?

A dipole does not have a counterpoise so your question is nonsense.


If not, than you heve the monopole.

What an utter idiot; a monopole has one physical element while a dipole
has two physical elements.

Monopole have always the two elements: the antenna and the counterpoise.

A counterpoise is not concidered an element, idiot.

That is the meaning of the prefixes "mono", which means one, and "di",
which means two.

So monopole has the one pole. The end of the counterpoise is not the pole.
In your "dipole" the counterpoise is in the form of one elevated radial.

Babbling gibberish; a dipole does not have a counterpoise.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


"The Hertzian dipole Consider two small spherical conductors connected by
a
wire. Suppose that electric charge flows periodically back and forth
between
the spheres."

In " NASA" antennas (eg. phase radars) the each "sphere" is fed from
special
feeder.

Phased radars don't use spheres for antennas.

Hertz was using the spheres or plates. They both were the ends of the open
circuit. The end can be without any "hat".

Once again, phased radars don't use spheres for antennas and Hertz was
long dead when radar was invented.

Do you have exactly the same voltages in the both ends of your "dipole"?

Of course I do.

How many antennas have you built?

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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?

The reason is that - on most occasions - it worked perfectly well, and they
'got away with it'. It was only when problems occurred (interference to TV,
radio, Hi-Fi etc) that much thought was given to the need for a balun.

And what if somebody have the monopole with the radials?

In modern times, there is a lot more opportunity for amateurs to interfere
with - and suffer interference from - all kinds of domestic equipment, and
the use of a balun (or twin feeder) has more-or-less become an absolute
necessity.

The twin feeder ensure the electrical symmetry.

2. the braid of the coax is "ground". this is not true. there will
be voltage at the braid of the coax at the antenna end when a balun
is not used.

Szczepan is obviously making the fundamental mistake of thinking that,
because the coax screen is grounded at the transmitter end (or at least
connected to the chassis of the transmitter), it is therefore at zero RF
potential - and that it is still at RF potential at the far (antenna) end,
where it is connected directly to the 'other' leg of the dipole. This is
wrong.

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.
He is therefore concluding that as both the coax screen and the other leg
of the dipole are at zero RF potential, the only part of the antenna
system that is 'RF live' is the leg of the dipole which is connected to
the inner conductor of the coax - which is what happens with a monopole.
As a result, he is then claiming that a dipole is really only a monopole.
This is wrong.

I am only claiming that it works like the monopole.
In your literature is wrote that "monopole with the counterpoise works like
the dipole". But in your literature the dipole means the mechanical
symmetry.

However, I'm still convinced that Szczepan knows far more about radio than
he appears to, and is cunningly trying to get us to explain phenomena
which maybe we really don't know as much about as we like to think we do!

Exactly.

But if I am right than the "counterpoise" leg of your dipole should be made
of the proper material and have the proper dimenssion not necesary the same
as the "live" leg.
So I start the new thread "Joels question".

The history of radio-amateur is so long that that issue is probably solved
long ago.
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

In your literature is wrote that "monopole with the counterpoise works
like the dipole". But in your literature the dipole means the mechanical
symmetry.

Hello Szczepan. Which amateur radio book said that "dipole" means the
"mechanical symmetry", please?
Regards, Ian.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

The reason is that - on most occasions - it worked perfectly well, and they
'got away with it'. It was only when problems occurred (interference to TV,
radio, Hi-Fi etc) that much thought was given to the need for a balun.

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.

In modern times, there is a lot more opportunity for amateurs to interfere
with - and suffer interference from - all kinds of domestic equipment, and
the use of a balun (or twin feeder) has more-or-less become an absolute
necessity.

The twin feeder ensure the electrical symmetry.

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

2. the braid of the coax is "ground". this is not true. there will
be voltage at the braid of the coax at the antenna end when a balun
is not used.

Szczepan is obviously making the fundamental mistake of thinking that,
because the coax screen is grounded at the transmitter end (or at least
connected to the chassis of the transmitter), it is therefore at zero RF
potential - and that it is still at RF potential at the far (antenna) end,
where it is connected directly to the 'other' leg of the dipole. This is
wrong.

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

That is because you are an ignorant, ineducable, idiot.

You have been told and you actually referenced a web link that shows how
a balancing device is used between a coax transmission line and and balanced
load, but no matter how many times you are told this and how many links
you post that say this, you are totally incapable of understanding any of
it.

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.

That is because you are an ignorant, ineducable, idiot.

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.


He is therefore concluding that as both the coax screen and the other leg
of the dipole are at zero RF potential, the only part of the antenna
system that is 'RF live' is the leg of the dipole which is connected to
the inner conductor of the coax - which is what happens with a monopole.
As a result, he is then claiming that a dipole is really only a monopole.
This is wrong.

I am only claiming that it works like the monopole.

That is because you are an ignorant, ineducable, idiot.

In your literature is wrote that "monopole with the counterpoise works like
the dipole". But in your literature the dipole means the mechanical
symmetry.

That is because you are an ignorant, ineducable, idiot.

What you quoted means the far field for a monopole with a counterpoise is
the same as the far field as a vertical dipole.

It does NOT mean the antenna voltages and currents are the same.

However, I'm still convinced that Szczepan knows far more about radio than
he appears to, and is cunningly trying to get us to explain phenomena
which maybe we really don't know as much about as we like to think we do!

Exactly.

You know NOTHING about radio.

You are a babbling, ignorant, ineducable, idiot.

How many transmitters have you run in your lifetime?

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?


But if I am right than the "counterpoise" leg of your dipole should be made
of the proper material and have the proper dimenssion not necesary the same
as the "live" leg.

You are NOT right.

Dipoles do not have a counterpoise.

You are a babbling, ignorant, ineducable, idiot.

So I start the new thread "Joels question".

The history of radio-amateur is so long that that issue is probably solved
long ago.

The "issue" was solved long ago, you are totally wrong about EVERYTHING
you say, and amateur radio has NOTHING to do with the issue other than
you are posting in an amatuer radio group.

Post your nonsense in sci.physics.electromag and you will get exactly the
same response, you babbling idiot.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.







--
Ian

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

In your literature is wrote that "monopole with the counterpoise works
like the dipole". But in your literature the dipole means the mechanical
symmetry.

Hello Szczepan. Which amateur radio book said that "dipole" means the
"mechanical symmetry", please?

"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*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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?


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.

The twin feeder ensure the electrical symmetry.

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

Are you sure?


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".
S*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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

In your literature is wrote that "monopole with the counterpoise works
like the dipole". But in your literature the dipole means the mechanical
symmetry.

Hello Szczepan. Which amateur radio book said that "dipole" means the
"mechanical symmetry", please?

"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.

It seems you are using theories that apply to DC electronics (like
"it is connected to ground so it has zero voltage") to HF.

This is wrong. Even when you feed a dipole with a coax, there still
is almost symmetrical voltage on the two connections, even though the
braid is connected to one pole and the other end of the braid may be
grounded.
The result is that there is voltage on the outside of the braid, the
coax becomes part of the antenna and the radiation pattern changes.

But it will not be a monopole. If anything, it is a tripole.

Of course, nobody in their right mind would to that. Use a balun.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

In message , Szczepan Bialek
writes

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
...
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

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"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*

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

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.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"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. "

True

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

No. There is no radial. There are two poles in a dipole and neither
of them is connected to the braid. It may be that one of them is
connected to the coax center conductor but this depends on the construction
of the balun (and the transformation ratio).

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

Normally not, in a 1:1 balun.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Ian Jackson wrote:


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.

It is always a dipole no matter where it is.

The type of antenna is determined by it's geometry, not it's location
or it's transmission line.

It is the radiation pattern of the antenna that is effected by it's
location.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

In message , Szczepan
Bialek writes

"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).

But what happens if the voltages are not quite absolutely symmetrical?
When does it cease to be 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.

I have found that in Polish description the dipole used by radio-amateurs
consists of the radiator and the counterpoise.

If that is true, then that description is essentially wrong. Maybe it is
a translation problem?

It is explained that it is geometrically symmetric.

That is essentially true. However, what happens if the symmetry is not
quite absolutely perfect? When does it cease to be a dipole?

Does anybody use the real dipole?

I doubt if many who use an antenna which has a radiator and a
counterpoise would think of it as a dipole. However, as I have
suggested, it is all a matter of degree, ie how much radiation comes
from the 'counterpoise'. A counterpoise is really intended to provide an
artificial ground - especially in conditions where it difficult to get a
good ground connection, or where the conductivity of the ground is poor.
Usually, the intention is that a counterpoise does not (or does not need
to) radiate. Multiple counterpoises are effectively radials, which are
definitely not intended to radiate.

If a dipole is fed directly using coax - but without a balun, the
'counterpoise' side of the dipole (the side connected to the coax
screen) radiates considerably. Also, a lot of the current in the
'counterpoise' side flows on the outside of the coax. This means that
the coax itself radiates (even if it perfectly grounded at the
transmitter end). Depending on the particular situation, this may - or
may not - cause problems. To prevent the possibility of problems caused
by radiation from the coax, a balun should be used.
--
Ian

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"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*

So they sent emails in the 19th century using paper and pencil?

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
...

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).

True but totally irrelevant to anything said here.

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.

The your Polish radio amateurs would be idiots or your understanding of
Polish is just as bad as your understanding of English.

It is explained that it is geometrically symmetric.

Likely about the ONLY thing you have said that is both true and relevant.

Does anybody use the real dipole?

The dipole is likely the most common type of antenna in use at frequencies
above about 2 MHz, so yes, thousands and thousand of people and organizatons
use dipoles.

How many antennas have you built and used?

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? 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.

The fields, currents, and voltages on an antenna can not be measuered by
paper and pensil (sic) and the methods necessary to calculated their
values didn't exist until Faraday was long dead and only became practical
after computers were invented.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa? 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. "

Not quite correct, but close enough.

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

OK.

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

Gibberish.

What is a "live conductor"?

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

In message , Szczepan Bialek
writes

"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.

Correct.

A balanced line has two conductors, with equal currents in
opposite directions.

Correct.

The unbalanced line has just one conductor; the current
in it returns via a common ground or earth path. "

Incorrect.

Unbalanced line (ie coax) has two conductors - the inner conductor and
the screen. At RF, the go and return currents flow on the outside if the
inner conductor, and on the inside of the screen. The outside of the
screen should be 'RF dead'. However, when the unbalanced coax is
connected directly to a balanced antenna, a lot of the screen current
flows on the outside of the screen, so the coax becomes part of the
antenna, and radiates.

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

A counterpoise (or a system of radials) can provide an artificial
ground. However, an artificial ground is only required for 'one-sided'
monopole types of antennas. A counterpoise is not normally intended to
be a radiator.

The 'counterpoise' side of a dipole - if it is connected directly to the
coax screen - is not RF-dead. It is usually intended to radiate
more-or-less as well as the 'RF-live' side. Unfortunately, some of the
current in the 'counterpoise' side of the dipole flows down the outside
of the coax screen, and this causes the coax to radiate.

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

Which voltages do you mean?
--
Ian

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Some 110 responses have been made to the fellow who may, or may not, be in
Poland. This does not count a similar number of messages from the fellow,
as those are blocked.

Why, oh why, do you continue to be the mechanics described so well by Mr.
O'Nella?

Stop feeding the fellow. 73, Mac N8TT
------------------------------------
"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message ...

Which is why I made my reference to Allen Funt of "Candid Camera." Funt
created preposterous situations and yet people tried their darndest to make
something real out of it.

I recall a car with no engine whose driver rolled it downhill into a service
station. The driver, Funt's attractive co-host, insisted that she had
driven around town all day and wanted the mechanic to check the car because
it didn't seem to have much power. In a perfect world, when the mechanic
popped the hood, he would have laughed and the "bit" would be spoiled. But
no! He tried eight ways to explain to her that she COULDN'T have been
driving around town. She just sweetly continued the hoax as several other
mechanics came over to check out the action. Classic!

Szczepan is that car with no engine and we are those mechanics. :-)

73,
"Sal"



J. C. Mc Laughlin
Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

J. C. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Some 110 responses have been made to the fellow who may, or may not, be in
Poland. This does not count a similar number of messages from the fellow,
as those are blocked.

Why, oh why, do you continue to be the mechanics described so well by Mr.
O'Nella?

The same reason police chases get high viewership.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"J. C. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
Some 110 responses have been made to the fellow who may, or may not, be in
Poland. This does not count a similar number of messages from the fellow,
as those are blocked.

Why, oh why, do you continue to be the mechanics described so well by Mr.
O'Nella?

Stop feeding the fellow. 73, Mac N8TT

Hello Mac.

As I've said before, it is fun and we do have some interesting discussions
amongst ourselves about aerials. I've a feeling that Szczepan is looking for
the engine and we're telling him that he is looking at a trolley and not a
car. Please don't push the analogy too far; some of us may say that we
rolled the car downhill and Szczepan can't understand that gravity moved the
car so an engine wasn't needed at all.

73 Ian.

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

On 7/14/2012 3:33 AM, Ian wrote:
"J. C. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
Some 110 responses have been made to the fellow who may, or may not, be in
Poland. This does not count a similar number of messages from the fellow,
as those are blocked.

Why, oh why, do you continue to be the mechanics described so well by Mr.
O'Nella?

Stop feeding the fellow. 73, Mac N8TT

Hello Mac.

As I've said before, it is fun and we do have some interesting discussions
amongst ourselves about aerials. I've a feeling that Szczepan is looking for
the engine and we're telling him that he is looking at a trolley and not a
car. Please don't push the analogy too far; some of us may say that we
rolled the car downhill and Szczepan can't understand that gravity moved the
car so an engine wasn't needed at all.

73 Ian.


Don't forget, this stunt was done later with a much more effective punch
line. They installed an electric motor in the rear and had batteries in
the trunk. She would hear that her engine could not be fixed because it
was missing. She would get mad and tell them she was not going to be
tricked into unnecessary repairs.

The punch line was when she rolled away and the hidden camera recorded
the looks on the faces of the mechanics.

Michael

Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

"Boomer" wrote in message
...
On 7/14/2012 3:33 AM, Ian wrote:
"J. C. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
Some 110 responses have been made to the fellow who may, or may not, be
in
Poland. This does not count a similar number of messages from the
fellow,
as those are blocked.

Why, oh why, do you continue to be the mechanics described so well by
Mr.
O'Nella?

Stop feeding the fellow. 73, Mac N8TT

Hello Mac.

As I've said before, it is fun and we do have some interesting
discussions
amongst ourselves about aerials. I've a feeling that Szczepan is looking
for
the engine and we're telling him that he is looking at a trolley and not
a
car. Please don't push the analogy too far; some of us may say that we
rolled the car downhill and Szczepan can't understand that gravity moved
the
car so an engine wasn't needed at all.

73 Ian.


Don't forget, this stunt was done later with a much more effective punch
line. They installed an electric motor in the rear and had batteries in
the trunk. She would hear that her engine could not be fixed because it
was missing. She would get mad and tell them she was not going to be
tricked into unnecessary repairs.

The punch line was when she rolled away and the hidden camera recorded the
looks on the faces of the mechanics.

Michael


I like it.

73, Ian.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

OK Gentlemen: I am now more wise. Entertainment comes in multiple forms.

A question that is indirectly related to antennas: I was explaining to an
attorney how the common North American 60 Hz electrical system is configured
for residences (240 VAC, center taped secondary, with the neutral connected
to earth and to the green wire [only] at the service entrance) He observed
that in the UK he was told that schemes for supplying 240 VAC 50 Hz had
earthling being done, if at all, several different ways.

So, educate us please: when we travel to the UK what are the schemes we
will find. I always used an isolation transformer that was only connected
while equipment was being used.

In a similar manner to what several of you have observed about yourselves, I
too have had a fascination with antennas (RF type, not 60 Hz) for close to
60 years. W8JK's 1950 book was a life changer - as I expect it was for
many.

73, Mac N8TT



"Ian" wrote in message ...

"Boomer" wrote in message
...
On 7/14/2012 3:33 AM, Ian wrote:
"J. C. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
Some 110 responses have been made to the fellow who may, or may not, be
in
Poland. This does not count a similar number of messages from the
fellow,
as those are blocked.

Why, oh why, do you continue to be the mechanics described so well by
Mr.
O'Nella?

Stop feeding the fellow. 73, Mac N8TT

Hello Mac.

As I've said before, it is fun and we do have some interesting
discussions
amongst ourselves about aerials. I've a feeling that Szczepan is looking
for
the engine and we're telling him that he is looking at a trolley and not
a
car. Please don't push the analogy too far; some of us may say that we
rolled the car downhill and Szczepan can't understand that gravity moved
the
car so an engine wasn't needed at all.

73 Ian.


Don't forget, this stunt was done later with a much more effective punch
line. They installed an electric motor in the rear and had batteries in
the trunk. She would hear that her engine could not be fixed because it
was missing. She would get mad and tell them she was not going to be
tricked into unnecessary repairs.

The punch line was when she rolled away and the hidden camera recorded the
looks on the faces of the mechanics.

Michael


I like it.

73, Ian.



J. C. Mc Laughlin
Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Dear Jeff: Many thanks.

It is especially interesting to learn that the expectation of encountering a
floating (no earthing) system is zero.

Expanding a bit on what you have communicated:
It appears that the transformer used between one phase of a HV 3 phase line
and distribution "wires" is 440VAC, center tapped. The distribution "wires"
to a house (or the like) are one side of the aforementioned transformer's
secondary and the transformer's center tap, which is labeled as neutral. It
is expected that another house (or the like) is fed from the other side of
the transformer's secondary and its center tap.

At the service entrance: one scheme connects the neutral to an earthing.
An alternative (called 'protective multiple earthing' (PME) ) does not
connect the neutral to an earthing, but connects exposed metal in the house
to an earthing. Wow! The latter scheme is expected in new construction.

It is not immediately clear what the advantage of the PME scheme might be.
Your caution about RF grounds is well placed.

In the North American scheme, for the last 60 or more years, a third wire is
involved - the green wire that is connected to an earthing only at the
service entrance and then to touchable surfaces of an appliance. The green
wire maintains what a human can touch at ground potential without relying on
anything else. In sub distribution boxes, the green wire is isolated from
neutral so the green wire provides a straight path for current to an
earthing.

Please correct any errors that have crept into my restatement. I once had a
G5 license and, in my radio astronomy days, spent a brief time at U. of
Manchester.

Warm regards, Mac N8TT

"Jeff" wrote in message ...

On 15/07/2012 10:10, Jeff wrote:
On 15/07/2012 03:20, J. C. Mc Laughlin wrote:
OK Gentlemen: I am now more wise. Entertainment comes in multiple
forms.

A question that is indirectly related to antennas: I was explaining to
an attorney how the common North American 60 Hz electrical system is
configured for residences (240 VAC, center taped secondary, with the
neutral connected to earth and to the green wire [only] at the service
entrance) He observed that in the UK he was told that schemes for
supplying 240 VAC 50 Hz had earthling being done, if at all, several
different ways.

So, educate us please: when we travel to the UK what are the schemes we
will find. I always used an isolation transformer that was only
connected while equipment was being used.


The UK distribution and home installation systems are paranoid about
earthing, true it can be done in several way but it it *always* done.

The primary distribution is 3 phase, the last leg being 3 phase at 440V
with 220V between each phase and neutral, normally only 1 phase is feed
to domestic premises.

Earthing is normally done locally by an earth stake at the home (or
formally bonding to water pipes, or the sheath of the incoming supply),
the neutral is bonded to earth at the sub-station and at other intervals
on the feed. Another system is where the incoming neutral conductor is
used as the earth, with no earth stake, BUT all exposed metalwork in the
home such as taps, water pipes etc have to be bonded to the earth
connection. There is a problem with this system if there is a break in
the supply neutral then the 'earth' will float to supply voltage. This
is not a problem as long as there is no connection to a real earth and
there is no path to earth hence no shock danger, and is why all exposed
conductors have to be bonded together. HOWEVER, this does pose a problem
for antenna earths as they would be a dangerous connection to a 'real'
earth with 230V between it and the local protective earth in the event
of a fault. Also if the rf earth has any sort of connection to the mains
earth there is a fire risk as that connection could carry the current
for every home between it and the neutral break.
This system is commonly known as 'protective multiple earthing' (PME)
and is common in new installations. It is imperative that you know what
system is in use before any additional rf earths are added.

Jeff


Forgot to add that except in very rural locations the feed to premises
from the sub-station is nearly always underground.

Jeff


J. C. Mc Laughlin
Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

J. C. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Dear Jeff: Many thanks.

It is especially interesting to learn that the expectation of encountering a
floating (no earthing) system is zero.

Expanding a bit on what you have communicated:
It appears that the transformer used between one phase of a HV 3 phase line
and distribution "wires" is 440VAC, center tapped. The distribution "wires"
to a house (or the like) are one side of the aforementioned transformer's
secondary and the transformer's center tap, which is labeled as neutral. It
is expected that another house (or the like) is fed from the other side of
the transformer's secondary and its center tap.

This is not what a 3-phase system is. What you describe is a 2-phase system.

A 3-phase system has 3 live wires, a neutral, and possibly a ground.
The 3 phases are 120 degrees apart, not 180.
Each phase has a voltage (230V here), and there is sqrt-3 times that
voltage between the phase wires (400V here). All three phases are
used in some electrical motors and in highpower applications like
electrical heating, and one of the phases is sufficient for a normal
house connection.

At the service entrance: one scheme connects the neutral to an earthing.
An alternative (called 'protective multiple earthing' (PME) ) does not
connect the neutral to an earthing, but connects exposed metal in the house
to an earthing. Wow! The latter scheme is expected in new construction.

Why "Wow!" ?
It is the only safe system.

Here in the Netherlands we have the same situation. Power is distributed
over 4 wires (3 live phases plus neutral) and a 5th wire is locally
distributed for safety ground. It is connected to the safety ground
connections of all reeceptacles and to metal structures in the house,
like water and central heating pipes. The neutral is only connected
to ground at the substation, and usually has a couple of volts on it
when measured at the receptacles.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Dear Rob: Of course I know what a three phase system is. In North
America, most high voltage (HV) is distributed using three phase. In a
residential area, a transformer's primary is connected to one of the phases
(with secondary producing what you call a 2-phase, 120VAC - 240VAC system).
At the next house, or group of houses, down the road another transformer is
connected to a different phase - and so on. Because the net power factor of
a residential area is inductive, periodically one will see a platform on a
pole holding three sets of capacitors each connected to a phase.

However, some businesses, farms, and essentially all industrial sites
receive all three phases mostly to avail themselves of the certain torque
and efficiency of three-phase-motors. [I told my students that the first
rule of 3-phase is never to lock the shaft of a new motor until one verifies
which way the shaft actually turns - because it will turn.]

It is most interesting to learn that in the Netherlands it is common to
deliver three phase to a residence. That is a surprise. My dormitory at
university distributed three phase with outlets on facing walls in some
rooms being on a different phase. This facilitated fast heating of hot-dog
sausages - not that I ever did such a thing. I have known about sqrt-of-3
for a very long time.

The use in the Netherlands of a fifth grounding wire - the green wire in
North America - is truly a good idea.

The "Wow" is prompted by the less than belt-and-suspender nature of a house
distribution system not using a green (earthing) wire. Steve pointed out
that things can go wrong. The system you described being used in the
Netherlands, while at 240 VAC, does not rely on all of the bonding staying
effective - and that is good. It also has the advantage of being able to
provide 3-phase to the few motors expected in a house.

Rob - many thanks for expanding my knowledge. Every engineer from the
Netherlands with whom I have worked has impressed me most favorably. Can
not say that for engineers from some countries.
73, Mac N8TT

"Rob" wrote in message ...

J. C. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Dear Jeff: Many thanks.

It is especially interesting to learn that the expectation of encountering
a
floating (no earthing) system is zero.

Expanding a bit on what you have communicated:
It appears that the transformer used between one phase of a HV 3 phase
line
and distribution "wires" is 440VAC, center tapped. The distribution
"wires"
to a house (or the like) are one side of the aforementioned transformer's
secondary and the transformer's center tap, which is labeled as neutral.
It
is expected that another house (or the like) is fed from the other side of
the transformer's secondary and its center tap.

This is not what a 3-phase system is. What you describe is a 2-phase
system.

A 3-phase system has 3 live wires, a neutral, and possibly a ground.
The 3 phases are 120 degrees apart, not 180.
Each phase has a voltage (230V here), and there is sqrt-3 times that
voltage between the phase wires (400V here). All three phases are
used in some electrical motors and in highpower applications like
electrical heating, and one of the phases is sufficient for a normal
house connection.

At the service entrance: one scheme connects the neutral to an earthing.
An alternative (called 'protective multiple earthing' (PME) ) does not
connect the neutral to an earthing, but connects exposed metal in the
house
to an earthing. Wow! The latter scheme is expected in new construction.

Why "Wow!" ?
It is the only safe system.

Here in the Netherlands we have the same situation. Power is distributed
over 4 wires (3 live phases plus neutral) and a 5th wire is locally
distributed for safety ground. It is connected to the safety ground
connections of all reeceptacles and to metal structures in the house,
like water and central heating pipes. The neutral is only connected
to ground at the substation, and usually has a couple of volts on it
when measured at the receptacles.


J. C. Mc Laughlin
Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

J. C. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Dear Rob: Of course I know what a three phase system is. In North
America, most high voltage (HV) is distributed using three phase. In a
residential area, a transformer's primary is connected to one of the phases
(with secondary producing what you call a 2-phase, 120VAC - 240VAC system).
At the next house, or group of houses, down the road another transformer is
connected to a different phase - and so on. Because the net power factor of
a residential area is inductive, periodically one will see a platform on a
pole holding three sets of capacitors each connected to a phase.

Like in the UK, we don't have low and medium voltage power distribution
on poles.
All local distribution is underground. Only high voltage is distrubuted
(between cities) on overhead cables.

It is most interesting to learn that in the Netherlands it is common to
deliver three phase to a residence. That is a surprise.

It is common, but not everyone has it. However, it is the normal situation
to distribute 3-phase power to every residence and then connect only a
single phase to a meter, picking another phase at each residence. On
request, the connection can be upgraded to 3-phase by exchanging the
meter and adding two more fuses to the already present 3-fuse box.

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Dear Rob: That is amazing. Very forward thinking. However, it seems to
use a lot of copper, some of which is latent waiting to be used. On the
other hand, the cost of running the 3 phase cable underground probably is
much more than the cost of the cable.

In the North American scheme, most HV and LV cables are "in the air." This
tends to minimize the cost of running the cable and, too often, advantage is
taken of air-cooling to use what I believe to be wire that is too small.
Some newer, crowded residential areas do bury everything. The wires to my
house are buried both as a means to provide safety (antennas can not touch
wires) and, because of the reduced cooling, as a means to have the right
gauge of wire used. I had to pay extra to have the pole to house connection
be as I think it should be.

Each of the disclosed systems has advantages and costs. It is fascinating
to see how different systems value the costs.
Thank you for expanding my knowledge. One wonders if you are a radio
amateur. 73, Mac N8TT

"Rob" wrote in message ...

J. C. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Dear Rob: Of course I know what a three phase system is. In North
America, most high voltage (HV) is distributed using three phase. In a
residential area, a transformer's primary is connected to one of the
phases
(with secondary producing what you call a 2-phase, 120VAC - 240VAC
system).
At the next house, or group of houses, down the road another transformer
is
connected to a different phase - and so on. Because the net power factor
of
a residential area is inductive, periodically one will see a platform on a
pole holding three sets of capacitors each connected to a phase.

Like in the UK, we don't have low and medium voltage power distribution
on poles.
All local distribution is underground. Only high voltage is distrubuted
(between cities) on overhead cables.

It is most interesting to learn that in the Netherlands it is common to
deliver three phase to a residence. That is a surprise.

It is common, but not everyone has it. However, it is the normal situation
to distribute 3-phase power to every residence and then connect only a
single phase to a meter, picking another phase at each residence. On
request, the connection can be upgraded to 3-phase by exchanging the
meter and adding two more fuses to the already present 3-fuse box.


J. C. Mc Laughlin
Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

UK earthling - was: Dipole-2 different wire sizes?
 

Dear Jeff: OK No tap on the LV side of the (3 phase) transformer. One
230 VAC wire and neutral wire go to house from the transformer.

The non-PME scheme: neutral is "earthed" only at the sub-station AND a local
earthing of a separate wire that seems to serve the same function as the
North American green wire is provided.

The PME scheme: no earthing takes place; at the house entrance, the neutral
is connected to what seems to serve as the green wire (the "local protective
earth wire").

Thinking now about installing an antenna and radio: with the PME scheme the
radio's case is connected to the "local protective earth wire" and yet the
outside of the coax is often going to be connected to an actual earthing. I
expect some current.

When I do the same thing here with the green wire connected to the radio's
case and the outside of the coax well attached to an extensive earthing
system, nothing happens because all of the earthings are connected together.
Most important of all, if I grab an exposed bit of the radio while holding
the unattached coax connector, no tickle is felt.

It sounds as if a standard part of each radio amateur faced with a PME
system is to use an isolation transformer.

Thanks too to you Jeff for significantly expanding my understanding of how
different people arrive at a solution to the same issue. By the way, are
you a radio amateur?

73, Mac N8TT



"Jeff" wrote in message ...

On 15/07/2012 15:50, J. C. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Dear Jeff: Many thanks.

It is especially interesting to learn that the expectation of
encountering a floating (no earthing) system is zero.

Expanding a bit on what you have communicated:
It appears that the transformer used between one phase of a HV 3 phase
line and distribution "wires" is 440VAC, center tapped. The
distribution "wires" to a house (or the like) are one side of the
aforementioned transformer's secondary and the transformer's center tap,
which is labeled as neutral. It is expected that another house (or the
like) is fed from the other side of the transformer's secondary and its
center tap.

No, there is no centre tapping, the supply is direct from one of the 3
phases at 230V+/- wrt neutral.


At the service entrance: one scheme connects the neutral to an
earthing. An alternative (called 'protective multiple earthing' (PME) )
does not connect the neutral to an earthing, but connects exposed metal
in the house to an earthing. Wow! The latter scheme is expected in new
construction.

No, one scheme leaves the neutral floating (at the consumer's end,
grounded at the sub-station) and provides an additional protective earth
wire locally via an earth stake (or in the past bonding to water pipes etc).

PME bonds the local protective earth wire to the neutral at the
consumer's end, and all exposed metal is bonded to that wire. NO
external earths are allowed (without modification of the scheme).

It is not immediately clear what the advantage of the PME scheme might
be. Your caution about RF grounds is well placed.

The claim is that because the earth is provided by the supply company is
it more reliable than a local earth stake. Personally I am not convinced
by the whole scheme.

Have a look at:
electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/16/earthing-questions.cfm?type=pdf

for more info
Jeff


J. C. Mc Laughlin
Michigan U.S.A.
Home: