No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m38cv9$9g2$1@dont-
email.me:

The problem is the Earth's climate is a very complex system. You can't
take a small area and project what's happening world-wide; things are
too interconnected.


Ok, I'll buy that. I'll let the matter rest. I actually have no axe to grind
either way. I just found it odd that people I knew did not realise that
'warming' could likely mean 'more dynamic'. Whatever the outcome or cause, we
have to adapt to changes or we're stuffed.

No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

wrote in message
...
On Monday, November 3, 2014 11:05:11 AM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
How many other people who are not engineers or scientists do you see
posting around here?

In discussions about short antennae, quite a few from Yankland.

I'm just a regular ole ham here. Never studied any of this stuff
in school, and don't work in any related field.
Everything I've learned, I learned on my own.

It shows.

Mainly from books,
of which I have several. I trust good textbooks a lot more than I
trust usenet jibber jabber. Usenet jibber jabber is only as good
as the qualifications of the one jabbering. Some info is good, some
is bad, and some is pure unadulterated bafflegab.

No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

On 11/3/2014 12:07 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 6:51:50 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Which means it rolls once per orbit. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to
keep the same side facing the earth.



I'll take you all's word for it.. I was pondering it as you
would a matchbox car rolling across a globe.. ??
If it's rolling, it must be real slow about it, as it's not
really detectable on the cameras.


Take an experiment. Go to your dining room table, opposite the door to
the kitchen. Face the table (and the kitchen door).

Now, walk around the table, trying to keep facing the table without
rotating your body. You can't do it.

The ISS is the same. You don't see the rotation because the ISS is
stationary (rotation-wise) relative to the earth, and you are observing
the earth. But if the cameras were pointed into space, you would see
the stars move as the ISS rotates.

The moon is the same way. It makes a complete rotation once every
orbit, thereby keeping the same face pointed at the earth.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

On Monday, November 3, 2014 11:17:26 AM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Monday, November 3, 2014 11:05:11 AM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
How many other people who are not engineers or scientists do you see
posting around here?

In discussions about short antennae, quite a few from Yankland.

I'm just a regular ole ham here. Never studied any of this stuff
in school, and don't work in any related field.
Everything I've learned, I learned on my own.

It shows.

Big talk from rraa's new purveyor of bafflegab... I've forgot more
than you know, and you can take that to the bank.

No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/2/2014 6:11 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/2/2014 3:58 PM, wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

Apples and oranges; we already know what will happen if one were to
build an antenna from a superconductor.

Fire up EZNEC and set material loss to zero; done.


Yeah, anyone with a map could say a great deal about the shape of West Africa
based on ocean travel.

Again, apples and oranges as we know EXACTLY and in DETAIL what would happen.

My point isn't so much about antennas, as about
exploring the easy availability of cold environments for superconductors in
space.

Easy availability measured in thousands of dollars an ounce to get
stuff there.

Not having to lug heavy coolers up there might be an offer someone
cannot refuse, and that someone might come back with all kinds of
discoveries, things no models or predictions are going out there to find.

The only thing that makes a superconductor different is the lack of
resistance.

We already know exactly what that means and what we would do with them
if room temperature superconcductors were available.

Here are a couple of things: electric motors and generators that would
be very close to 100% efficient, small, light, and lossless power
transmission lines, lossless transformers, big honking magnets.


It's a little more than just no resistance. For instance,
superconductors will "reflect" (for lack of a better word) a magnetic
field. That's now a superconducting disk will levitate over a magnetic
field. So just setting the resistance to zero doesn't necessarily cut
it. There are other things to consider which EZNIC may not handle properly.

Such as?

In regards to magnetic levitation, a super conductor is a perfect
diamagnet due to the Meissner effect.

None of that has anything to do with antennas.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ds/maglev.html

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


Are you sure? I haven't seen anything one way or the other on it -
although I'm sure it's been studied.

Can you point at some studies to that effect?

Start with the two links, follow the internal links.


--
Jim Pennino

No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

rickman wrote:
On 11/2/2014 3:58 PM, wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

Apples and oranges; we already know what will happen if one were to
build an antenna from a superconductor.

Fire up EZNEC and set material loss to zero; done.


Yeah, anyone with a map could say a great deal about the shape of West Africa
based on ocean travel.

Again, apples and oranges as we know EXACTLY and in DETAIL what would happen.

My point isn't so much about antennas, as about
exploring the easy availability of cold environments for superconductors in
space.

Easy availability measured in thousands of dollars an ounce to get
stuff there.

Not having to lug heavy coolers up there might be an offer someone
cannot refuse, and that someone might come back with all kinds of
discoveries, things no models or predictions are going out there to find.

The only thing that makes a superconductor different is the lack of
resistance.

That is far from true. There are all sorts of magnetic effects.

All of which are due to the lack of resistance which results in enormous
eddy currents.

Are you familiar with the eddy current dampers found on some balance
scales consisting of a piece of aluminum between two permanet magnets?

If the scale is see-sawing up and down, the eddy currents induced in the
aluminum generate a small magnetic field in oposition to the motion,
thus damping the motion.

Replace the aluminum with a superconductor and the scale is no longer
damped, it is locked into position because of the huge eddy currents
from even the slightest movement.


--
Jim Pennino

No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/2/2014 6:17 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/2/2014 4:55 PM, wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

There is no undiscovered magic in superconductors.

There was no magic in any of the materials used for Gemini and Apollo either,
but countelss things were learned just by using them out there.

Care to name a few specifically from Genini and Apollo?

And BTW, 99.9% of the materials used is aluminum.



Much of the medical monitoring technology came out of the early space
program, for one thing. So did advances in propulsion systems and
remote controls (more than just model planes and cars) for another.

True, but none of that came from throwing the stuff up into space just
to see what would happen.



No, but they all came from the space race (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo
programs) - which was your question.

Nope, my question was what came from throwing the stuff up into space just
to see what would happen.

Perhaps I should have phrased it more clearly.

And since then, there have been all kinds of experiments on various
orbiting objects such as MIR, Skylab, the space shuttle and ISS. Many
discoveries are coming out of it - although I don't know offhand what's
been put to use yet, since there is no manufacturing in space. But
thinks like perfectly round ball bearings and new ways to make
pharmaceuticals come to mind.

All of which revolve around the concept of doing something dynamic
in a zero gravity environment. None of it has anything to do with
some material showing some new and hitherto unknown property simply
by being in such an environment.

Take ball bearings for example. It has long been known that absent an
external force, i.e. gravity, that a liquid will form into a sphere
due to surface tension.


--
Jim Pennino

No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

True, but none of that came from throwing the stuff up into space just
to see what would happen.


Do you think that 'experiment' is a switch, not a continuum? You write as if
it's either a forgone certainty, or total whimsy.

You write like a starry eyed dreamer that believes long established
principals are going to go away simply by putting something in space.

The effects of temperature, air pressure, radiation and gravity have
been well known for a very long time and are the only things that change
by putting something in space.


--
Jim Pennino

No antennae radiate all the power fed to them!
 

rickman wrote:
On 11/2/2014 4:11 PM, wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

The only external heat source in space is the Sun; solution, sun shade.


Maybe not. I just did a bit of Googling for 'superconductors in space' minus
quotes. There's a lot of statements abotu space missions ended because
required helium or hydrogen coolant ran out,

Yeah, the coolent ran out for the things that GENERATE a lot of heat
and need to be cooled more than radiation can provide. Radiative cooling
does not provide for a lot of cooling.

and also of space having latent
temperatures up to 100K, so a sun shade won't help a lot there with current
materials.

There really is no such thing as temperature in space as it is a vacuum.

That is a gross oversimplification. The temperature of space is the
temperature of the background radiation, even in a near vacuum.

That is also an simplification.



--
Jim Pennino