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?

"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*

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.

"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*

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.

"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*

"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.

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.

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.

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