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.

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*

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?

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


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*

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?

Instead writting the "babbling idiot" write a long article on antennas
without ground.

You wrote: "Only end fed monopoles need radials". Do you mean that "Only end
fed monopoles need ground"?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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


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*

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?

Instead writting the "babbling idiot" write a long article on antennas
without ground.

Why as there already exists thousands and thousands of such literature
references?

Howver you are too much of an ignorant, ineducable, babbling idiot to be
able to read any of them and understand them.

You were totally unable to understand something as simple as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna

and started babbling about the colors on the graphics showing you haven't
a clue what the article was actually saying.

You wrote: "Only end fed monopoles need radials". Do you mean that "Only end
fed monopoles need ground"?

No, I meant what I said.

You, however, are too much of an ignorant, ineducable, babbling idiot to be
able to understand it.

To be precise, only end fed monopoles need a counterpoise.

The counterpoise can consist of either radials, a large conductive area
fabricated for the purpose, or the Earth itself IF the surface conductivity
is high enough.

The words "ground", "radial", and "counterpoise" in relation to antennas
are three diffent things with three different meanings but you are too
much of an ignorant, ineducable, babbling idiot to be to understand that.

A quarter wave, end fed vertical monopole with a set of radials does NOT
need a connection to ground.

The radials serve as the counterpoise.

As you are an ignorant, ineducable, babbling idiot you will not understand
any of this and will reply with babbling nonsense.

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

You were totally unable to understand something as simple as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna

"The quarter wavemonopole antenna is a single element antenna fed at one
end, that behaves as a dipole antenna."

Are you able to understand something as simple as the above?


To be precise, only end fed monopoles need a counterpoise.

The radials serve as the counterpoise.

The Author in Wiki describes the "dipole" used by radio-amateurs.
Such dipole is simply "The quarter wavemonopole antenna".
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...

You were totally unable to understand something as simple as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna

"The quarter wavemonopole antenna is a single element antenna fed at one
end, that behaves as a dipole antenna."

Are you able to understand something as simple as the above?

Yes, and obviously you can not.

What it means is the total FIELD is the same as if the antenna were a dipole.

Nothing more, nothing less.

To be precise, only end fed monopoles need a counterpoise.

The radials serve as the counterpoise.

The Author in Wiki describes the "dipole" used by radio-amateurs.
Such dipole is simply "The quarter wavemonopole antenna".

A dipole is a dipole is a dipole and it doesn't matter who is using it.

A dipole is NOT "The quarter wavemonopole antenna".

A dipole is a dipole is a dipole.

You STILL can not understand the difference and you never will as you are
an ineducable idiot.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 08/07/2012 10:23, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...

You were totally unable to understand something as simple as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna

"The quarter wavemonopole antenna is a single element antenna fed at one
end, that behaves as a dipole antenna."

Are you able to understand something as simple as the above?


To be precise, only end fed monopoles need a counterpoise.

The radials serve as the counterpoise.

The Author in Wiki describes the "dipole" used by radio-amateurs.
Such dipole is simply "The quarter wavemonopole antenna".
S*


No It doesn't, it describes a monopole as as dipole using the image in the
ground as the second leg!!

But what is does show is a dipole with one arm connected to the braid of a
coax!!!! Which of course you ignored!!!!!

The braid = the shield.

The braid and the arm are together the counterpoise.

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

If not, than you heve the monopole. But it is nothing wrong if in your
community it is call "dipole".
S*