Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci ... On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote: The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY instead "Without of any doubts";. Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far. Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century physics. The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of electrons. The "Giants" were wrong, light is no such thing, and you are a moron. Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less ignorant than 19th century folk. In XX century was done the first rectenna: "A rectenna is a rectifying antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert microwave energy into direct current electricity. " In XXI century are the optical rectennas. Irrelevant to anything to do with the nature of light. But the first were the crystal radio: "The simplest crystal radio receiver, employing an antenna and a demodulating diode (rectifier), is actually a rectenna". From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna Irrelevant to anything to do with the nature of light other than to show light and radio waves have the same properties. You wrote "latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far". But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best? Generally, the latest ones which have more experiments and data to back them up. To have knowledge means know the facts not theories. To be Szczepan Bialek means to be an ignorant, ineducable, moron. You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely NOTHING about antennas or how they work. You don't even understand what an antenna is or the difference between an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field. An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's teminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna and also coverts the electromagnetic energy which antenna intercepts into AC electrical energy at it's terminals. A rectenna is simply an antenna with something that acts as a diode at it's terminals to convert the AC to DC. How many antennas have you built in your lifetime? Why do you refuse to answer the question? Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot? Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on anthing in any language? Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Using speaker wire for a dipole | Antenna | |||
80m Dipole fed with open wire feeder. | Antenna | |||
Newbie with a wire dipole | CB | |||
Receiver dipole vs 23 ft wire for HF | Antenna | |||
Long wire vs. G5RV/dipole | Shortwave |