"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

See:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=j3h...434678&f=false

S*
Ah - we're back to the rectenna which is defined in Wiki thus "A simple
rectenna element consists of a dipole antenna with a diode connected across
the dipole elements".

ttfn, Ian.

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

See:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=j3h...434678&f=false

S*
Ah - we're back to the rectenna which is defined in Wiki thus "A simple
rectenna element consists of a dipole antenna with a diode connected
across the dipole elements".

Here you are the simple:
http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/yre/agency...e/rap-nuc2.htm

Are the dipole elements symmetrical?
It seems that one of them is a counterpoise.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

Here you are the simple:
http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/yre/agency...e/rap-nuc2.htm

Are the dipole elements symmetrical?
It seems that one of them is a counterpoise.
S*
Wiki says that a rectenna is "a dipole antenna with a diode connected across
the dipole elements".
A dipole is a balanced, symmetrical aerial and does not have a counterpoise.
I can't be responsible for you being unable to understand what
"symmetrical", "balanced" and "counterpoise" mean. I can suggest / recommend
that you acquire a reference book on aerials from the ARRL or RSGB. You'd
find them immensely helpful.
Regards, Ian.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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

See:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=j3h...434678&f=false

S*
Ah - we're back to the rectenna which is defined in Wiki thus "A simple
rectenna element consists of a dipole antenna with a diode connected
across the dipole elements".

Here you are the simple:
http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/yre/agency...e/rap-nuc2.htm

Are the dipole elements symmetrical?

Yes

It seems that one of them is a counterpoise.

Why? I see symmetrical elements.

What you can also see here is that this is another example of what
I wrote earlier: there is a circle in the schematic starting at the
diode where you can go around with DC current and end at the same
point.
This circle is where the DC current flows, not from the elements into
the air.

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


Here you are the simple:
http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/yre/agency...e/rap-nuc2.htm

Are the dipole elements symmetrical?

Yes

Mechanically.
Also electrically?

It seems that one of them is a counterpoise.

Why? I see symmetrical elements.

I see that the voltages are not symmetrical when the diode shines.
I bet that is the such orientation vs a oven that is the symmetry and no
shine.

What you can also see here is that this is another example of what
I wrote earlier: there is a circle in the schematic starting at the
diode where you can go around with DC current and end at the same
point.
This circle is where the DC current flows, not from the elements into
the air.

From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the current must
flow in the air. Of course sometimes is enough if only part flows in the
air. It is the leakage.
At HF the leakage is rather large.
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the current must
flow in the air. Of course sometimes is enough if only part flows in the
air. It is the leakage.
At HF the leakage is rather large.

But today we know that this is not true.

"Rob" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the current
must
flow in the air. Of course sometimes is enough if only part flows in the
air. It is the leakage.
At HF the leakage is rather large.

But today we know that this is not true.
"A great deal of analytical and experimental work has been done over the
past 100 years on the design and performance of ground systems for
verticals. "
And in summary: "Depending on the character of the soil, it is possible
there may be some increase in soil conductivity as we go up in frequency
which might compensate a bit. "

"The purpose of the radial system is to divert current from the soil into
the radial conductors which have very low loss compared to soil. We can
calculate the current division between a radial system and the soil ".From:
http://www.kkn.net/dayton2004/HF_ver...6LF_Dayton.pdf

For me the current between the radial and soil (or air) is the leakage:

Is at HF the leakage rather large?

S*.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Rob" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the current
must
flow in the air. Of course sometimes is enough if only part flows in the
air. It is the leakage.
At HF the leakage is rather large.

But today we know that this is not true.
"A great deal of analytical and experimental work has been done over the
past 100 years on the design and performance of ground systems for
verticals. "
And in summary: "Depending on the character of the soil, it is possible
there may be some increase in soil conductivity as we go up in frequency
which might compensate a bit. "

"The purpose of the radial system is to divert current from the soil into
the radial conductors which have very low loss compared to soil. We can
calculate the current division between a radial system and the soil ".From:
http://www.kkn.net/dayton2004/HF_ver...6LF_Dayton.pdf

For me the current between the radial and soil (or air) is the leakage:

Nope, you have no clue what is actually happening.

Is at HF the leakage rather large?

This is a nonsense question based on a total lack of understading of
what is really happening.

On Friday, July 27, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the
current must flow in the air.

Maxwell did not believe in current flowing "in the air". That's why he used the concept of "displacement current". He was ignorant of photon energy flow being the equivalent of current flow. Nowadays, we know that when it appears that coherent current is flowing in the air or indeed through any dielectric (including free space), it is actually photons that are doing the flowing, i.e. photons are accomplishing the energy transfer *as if* current were flowing through charge carriers. All EM field/wave phenomena involve quantized photons.

For those who still believe in displacement current, it is easy to prove that, under certain conditions, the displacement current would have to violate the speed of light limit in order to accomplish the energy transfer in the measured time.

Do you understand the Pointing explanation that nothing if flowing in
the conductor?

Quoting "Fields and Waves ...", by Ramo & Whinnery: "A perfect conductor is usually understood to be a material in which there is no electric field at any frequency. Maxwell's equations ensure that there is then also no time-varying magnetic field in the perfect conductor."

In the non-perfect real world, something is flowing in the skin effect depth of a conductor which is the cause of the power losses in the conductor.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Friday, July 27, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
From Maxwell's time all circuits are closed. So sometimes the
current must flow in the air.

Maxwell did not believe in current flowing "in the air". That's why he used
the concept of "displacement current". He was ignorant of photon energy
flow being the equivalent of current flow. Nowadays, we know that when it
appears that coherent current is flowing in the air or indeed through any
dielectric (including free space), it is actually photons that are doing
the flowing, i.e. photons are accomplishing the energy transfer *as if*
current were flowing through charge carriers. All EM field/wave phenomena
involve quantized photons.

For those who still believe in displacement current, it is easy to prove
that, under certain conditions, the displacement current would have to
violate the speed of light limit in order to accomplish the energy transfer
in the measured time.

Do you understand the Pointing explanation that nothing if flowing in
the conductor?

Quoting "Fields and Waves ...", by Ramo & Whinnery: "A perfect conductor is
usually understood to be a material in which there is no electric field at
any frequency. Maxwell's equations ensure that there is then also no
time-varying magnetic field in the perfect conductor."

In the non-perfect real world, something is flowing in the skin effect
depth of a conductor which is the cause of the power losses in the
conductor.

Why you do not like the electrons?
For what you need the next " the equivalent of current flow".
S*