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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!
--
Ian

"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*

"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.

"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*

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.

"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.

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?

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

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
news
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*

In message , Szczepan Bialek
writes

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
news
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