Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Anyone know where I can find plans for an artificial ground?
726 views
Skip to first unread message
Bob
Apr 13, 2013, 11:05:36 PM4/13/13
to
I was looking into an artificial ground because I live on a second floor and
thought it might be useful, especially in support of a necessarily long ground
connection. I did do a search, but only came up with links related to the MFJ
offerings which only go to 30MHz. I'm hoping for one that covers 6 meters as
well. Does anyone here know where I can find plans to construct one?
Thanks & 73,
Bob KB2ZGN
thought it might be useful, especially in support of a necessarily long ground
connection. I did do a search, but only came up with links related to the MFJ
offerings which only go to 30MHz. I'm hoping for one that covers 6 meters as
well. Does anyone here know where I can find plans to construct one?
Thanks & 73,
Bob KB2ZGN
nm...@wt.net
Apr 13, 2013, 11:23:27 PM4/13/13
to
using an RF ground at all. Instead, use only "complete"
antennas that do not require a ground connection to
complete the antenna. IE: dipoles, etc..
Ralph Mowery
Apr 13, 2013, 11:27:42 PM4/13/13
to
"Bob" <n...@real.com> wrote in message
news:bq6km8trq6um547tl...@4ax.com...
ground. Tell us more about what you are planning on using for a 6 meter
antenna and why you think you need the artifical ground.
The artifical ground electrically streaches a short wire just as loading
coils electrically streach the short antennas.
Bob
Apr 14, 2013, 4:39:05 AM4/14/13
to
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 23:27:42 -0400, "Ralph Mowery" <rmower...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
I have an Ultimax100 21ft wire antenna that has a matching network that allows
it to be used on multiple bands. In fact, I get a good match on everything from
160 to 6 meters with my LDG IT-100 auto tuner connected to my IC-7000.
I've read that an artificial ground connected to a ground wire running to my
second floor apartment can improve the effectiveness of the RF ground compared
to just using a wire alone. I was looking to improve it's performance if it
actually does what they claim - reduction in potential TVI, RF hot spots in the
"shack" etc..
My landlord is a Luddite, and was having kittens over my just putting a rope,
(over a tree branch) attached to the wire antenna. I had to do a lot of talking
to try to assure him it wasn't dangerous. I just want to avoid any future
potential problems by doing everything I can in advance. It's difficult enough
dealing with this sort of person. I'm sure you know the type.
If you want any more info, I'll be happy to provide it.
Thanks and 73,
Bob KB2ZGN
wrote:
it to be used on multiple bands. In fact, I get a good match on everything from
160 to 6 meters with my LDG IT-100 auto tuner connected to my IC-7000.
I've read that an artificial ground connected to a ground wire running to my
second floor apartment can improve the effectiveness of the RF ground compared
to just using a wire alone. I was looking to improve it's performance if it
actually does what they claim - reduction in potential TVI, RF hot spots in the
"shack" etc..
My landlord is a Luddite, and was having kittens over my just putting a rope,
(over a tree branch) attached to the wire antenna. I had to do a lot of talking
to try to assure him it wasn't dangerous. I just want to avoid any future
potential problems by doing everything I can in advance. It's difficult enough
dealing with this sort of person. I'm sure you know the type.
If you want any more info, I'll be happy to provide it.
Thanks and 73,
Bob KB2ZGN
Bob
Apr 14, 2013, 4:42:06 AM4/14/13
to
my reply to the post after yours.
Thanks for replying and the input,
Bob KB2ZGN
Irv Finkleman
Apr 14, 2013, 10:52:30 AM4/14/13
to
Go to Google and use Artificial Ground Schematic as your search term --
there is lots of stuff
there.
Irv VE6BP
there is lots of stuff
there.
Irv VE6BP
W5DXP
Apr 14, 2013, 12:03:19 PM4/14/13
to
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 10:05:36 PM UTC-5, Bob wrote:
> Does anyone here know where I can find plans to construct one?
http://www.remeeus.eu/english/hamradio/artificial_ground.htm
Wayne
Apr 14, 2013, 2:24:13 PM4/14/13
to
"Bob" wrote in message news:bq6km8trq6um547tl...@4ax.com...
inductor will help smooth things out if you are using a tapped inductor.
But, you don't need a ground unless it is part of the antenna, as with a
random end fed wire.
From the 2nd floor, I've never had any trouble with dipoles, ground planes,
or ground mounted verticals.
Channel Jumper
Apr 15, 2013, 8:38:18 AM4/15/13
to
'Bob[_32_ Wrote:
> ;803765']On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 23:27:42 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
> rmower...@earthlink.net
> wrote:
> -
> news:bq6km8trq6um547tl...@4ax.com...-
> I was looking into an artificial ground because I live on a second floor
>
> and
> thought it might be useful, especially in support of a necessarily long
>
> ground
> connection. I did do a search, but only came up with links related to
> the
> MFJ
> offerings which only go to 30MHz. I'm hoping for one that covers 6
> meters
> as
> well. Does anyone here know where I can find plans to construct one?
>
> Thanks & 73,
> Bob KB2ZGN-
>
> and
> thought it might be useful, especially in support of a necessarily long
>
> ground
> connection. I did do a search, but only came up with links related to
> the
> MFJ
> offerings which only go to 30MHz. I'm hoping for one that covers 6
> meters
> as
> well. Does anyone here know where I can find plans to construct one?
>
> Thanks & 73,
>
> Six meter antennas are small enough that you should not need an
> artifical
> ground. Tell us more about what you are planning on using for a 6 meter
>
> antenna and why you think you need the artifical ground.
>
> The artifical ground electrically streaches a short wire just as loading
>
> coils electrically streach the short antennas.
> -
> Six meter antennas are small enough that you should not need an
> artifical
> ground. Tell us more about what you are planning on using for a 6 meter
>
> antenna and why you think you need the artifical ground.
>
> The artifical ground electrically streaches a short wire just as loading
>
> coils electrically streach the short antennas.
antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
the antenna is resonant.
--
Channel Jumper
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 15, 2013, 12:37:06 PM4/15/13
to
Channel Jumper <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Someone is smoking dope = although you have a conjugal match / the
> antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
> will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
> what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
> resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
> Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
> like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
> the antenna is resonant.
A giant pile of babbling nonsense that shows a total lack of understanding
of impedence matching and how antennas work.
--
Jim Pennino
<snip>
> Someone is smoking dope = although you have a conjugal match / the
> antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
> will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
> what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
> resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
> Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
> like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
> the antenna is resonant.
of impedence matching and how antennas work.
--
Jim Pennino
Wayne
Apr 15, 2013, 1:29:33 PM4/15/13
to
"Channel Jumper" wrote in message
news:Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com...
'Bob[_32_ Wrote:
> ;803765']On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 23:27:42 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
> rmower...@earthlink.net
> wrote:
> -
>
> "Bob" n...@real.com wrote in message
> news:bq6km8trq6um547tl...@4ax.com...-
> I was looking into an artificial ground because I live on a second floor
>
> and
> thought it might be useful, especially in support of a necessarily long
>
> If you want any more info, I'll be happy to provide it.
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Bob KB2ZGN
# Someone is smoking dope = although you have a conjugal match / the
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Bob KB2ZGN
# antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
# will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
# what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
# resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
# Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
# like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
# the antenna is resonant.
Interesting assertion.
If you have a full sized "resonant" antenna fed with 100 watts,
why would it be better than a non-resonate radiator fed with 100 watts
via a tuner that "tricks" the transmitter into delivering 100 watts?
tom
Apr 15, 2013, 8:12:33 PM4/15/13
to
On 4/15/2013 7:38 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:
>
> Someone is smoking dope = although you have a conjugal match / the
> antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
> will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
> what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
> resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
> Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
> like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
> the antenna is resonant.
>
Yup, and we all know who it is. You're showing your ignorance again.
>
> Someone is smoking dope = although you have a conjugal match / the
> antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
> will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
> what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
> resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
> Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
> like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
> the antenna is resonant.
>
tom
K0TAR
Irv Finkleman
Apr 15, 2013, 9:25:58 PM4/15/13
to
I have been using a MFJ-931 Artificial Ground successfully by using a
counterpoise
wire running along the floor in my 2nd floor suite. The 26 foot
counterpoise wire (the length is not
critical -- any length where you can tune the 931 for a current peak will
do) tunes well
from 80 thru 10 meters. No need to connect to a water pipe or a ground rod,
and
your landlord will never know!
Irv - VE6BP
counterpoise
wire running along the floor in my 2nd floor suite. The 26 foot
counterpoise wire (the length is not
critical -- any length where you can tune the 931 for a current peak will
do) tunes well
from 80 thru 10 meters. No need to connect to a water pipe or a ground rod,
and
your landlord will never know!
Irv - VE6BP
Ian Jackson
Apr 17, 2013, 3:27:46 PM4/17/13
to
In message <kkhd8o$vq2$1...@dont-email.me>, Wayne
<mygarb...@verizon.net> writes
0.5 wave antenna is likely to be 'better' than a naturally non-resonant
0.125 wave, it's unlikely that it will be 'better' than an equally
naturally non-resonant 0.625-wave.
--
Ian
<mygarb...@verizon.net> writes
>
>
>"Channel Jumper" wrote in message
>news:Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com...
>
>
>
>
>"Channel Jumper" wrote in message
>news:Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com...
>
>
>
>># Someone is smoking dope = although you have a conjugal match / the
>># antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
>># will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
>># what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
>># resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
>># Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
>># like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
>># the antenna is resonant.
>
>Interesting assertion.
>If you have a full sized "resonant" antenna fed with 100 watts,
>why would it be better than a non-resonate radiator fed with 100 watts
>via a tuner that "tricks" the transmitter into delivering 100 watts?
While it's probably correct to say that a naturally resonant fullsize
>># antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
>># will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
>># what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
>># resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
>># Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
>># like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
>># the antenna is resonant.
>
>Interesting assertion.
>If you have a full sized "resonant" antenna fed with 100 watts,
>why would it be better than a non-resonate radiator fed with 100 watts
>via a tuner that "tricks" the transmitter into delivering 100 watts?
0.5 wave antenna is likely to be 'better' than a naturally non-resonant
0.125 wave, it's unlikely that it will be 'better' than an equally
naturally non-resonant 0.625-wave.
--
Ian
Wayne
Apr 17, 2013, 5:59:39 PM4/17/13
to
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message news:OaUWdsGy...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
In message <kkhd8o$vq2$1...@dont-email.me>, Wayne
<mygarb...@verizon.net> writes
>
>
>"Channel Jumper" wrote in message
>news:Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com...
>
>
>
>># Someone is smoking dope = although you have a conjugal match / the
>># antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
>># will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
>># what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
>># resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
>># Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
>># like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
>># the antenna is resonant.
>
>Interesting assertion.
>If you have a full sized "resonant" antenna fed with 100 watts,
>why would it be better than a non-resonate radiator fed with 100 watts
>via a tuner that "tricks" the transmitter into delivering 100 watts?
# 0.5 wave antenna is likely to be 'better' than a naturally non-resonant
# 0.125 wave, it's unlikely that it will be 'better' than an equally
# naturally non-resonant 0.625-wave.
# --
# Ian
Yes, the devil is in the details of how to deliver the same power to both.
I'm happy with my 20 meter quarter wave vertical fed by 20 feet of coax to a
tuner.
It does a reasonable job on 30-10 meters.
Sal
Apr 17, 2013, 7:02:03 PM4/17/13
to
"Channel Jumper" <Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com> wrote in message
news:Channel.Jum...@radiobanter.com...
< snip >
> ... although you have a conjugal match / the
> antenna is not resonant. Yes the tuner can match it so the transmitter
> will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
> what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
> resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
> Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
> like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
> the antenna is resonant.
> --
> Channel Jumper
What you say has a purist's ring to it. I lack the needed room
> will put power into it, but because it is not resonant - you won't hear
> what you would hear if it was resonant. The tuner cannot make a non
> resonant antenna resonant. I think this is where your confusion lies.
> Only use resonant antenna's and forget about tuners - or trickers as I
> like to call them.. They only trick your transceiver into thinking that
> the antenna is resonant.
> --
> Channel Jumper
for enough antennas to be such a purist. I live on an
ordinary suburban lot, roughly 100 x 100; the airspace already
looks about halfway like a spider web.
Please describe your antennas.
Tuners take some of my QSOs from impossible to possible.
My 10m dipole gets 10, 12 and 15; my two 20m dipoles get
15, 20 and 30; my 40m dipole gets 40, 80 and 160. (Yes,
thank you, I know I can't throw fireballs across the skies with
this setup. I'm simply having some fun.)
BTW, nothing I have works for 17, so years ago I cut a 17m
dipole. It's spooled up on a nearby shelf because I never had
a strong urge to work more than a few folks on 17.
"Sal"
(KD6VKW)
W5DXP
Apr 17, 2013, 9:38:27 PM4/17/13
to
On Monday, April 15, 2013 7:38:18 AM UTC-5, Channel Jumper wrote:
> The tuner cannot make a non resonant antenna resonant.
The purpose of a tuner is to make a non-resonant antenna *system* resonant. The tuner + feedline + antenna become parts of a resonant *system* when the tuner is adjusted for 50 ohms at its input terminal. Anyone can verify that fact by coupling a grid dip meter at any point in the system from one end to the other. Here's an article on the subject:
> The tuner cannot make a non resonant antenna resonant.
http://www.eham.net/articles/29821
Message has been deleted
W5DXP
Apr 18, 2013, 8:00:09 AM4/18/13
to
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 3:57:40 AM UTC-5, Jef wrote:
> It says that there must be a conjugate
> match, that does not equate to resonance, ...
I was trusting the reader to comprehend that a conjugate match implies system-wide resonance - guess I should have been more explicit.
In a lossless system, a conjugate match *indeed* equates to system-wide resonance. Even if the system is only low-loss, the 50 ohm Z0 match at the tuner input creates a system-wide resonance. Prove it for yourself by taking your grid-dip meter and coupling to different points in the system. From end to end, you will observe the resonance dip.
Like you, some other people misunderstood the point of the article so I revised it and posted the latest revision on my web page.
http://www.w5dxp.com/OWT1.htm
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com
> It says that there must be a conjugate
> match, that does not equate to resonance, ...
I was trusting the reader to comprehend that a conjugate match implies system-wide resonance - guess I should have been more explicit.
In a lossless system, a conjugate match *indeed* equates to system-wide resonance. Even if the system is only low-loss, the 50 ohm Z0 match at the tuner input creates a system-wide resonance. Prove it for yourself by taking your grid-dip meter and coupling to different points in the system. From end to end, you will observe the resonance dip.
Like you, some other people misunderstood the point of the article so I revised it and posted the latest revision on my web page.
http://www.w5dxp.com/OWT1.htm
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com
Bob
Apr 18, 2013, 6:06:31 PM4/18/13
to
comments, I decided it would cost me about as much to build one, (no junk box
items) than buy the MFJ-931, and while it would be fun to build one, my needs
are a little more pressing. So, I'm going to buy one, and since it is relatively
small, I'm going to make a dipole to cover 6 Meters because the MFJ only covers
1.8 to 30 MHz.
I want to thank everyone who responded, making for a lively discussion. It was
illuminating.
73, Bob KB2ZGN
nm...@wt.net
Apr 20, 2013, 12:18:37 AM4/20/13
to
I'm probably known as the anti-ground.. lol..
IE: I don't believe in RF grounds in the shack unless
the antenna is fed directly from the shack. Which
is fairly rare for me, but I have done it on 160m a
few times..
My way of thinking is that an RF ground should always
be a part of the antenna itself, preferably away from
the shack. IE: a dipole is a complete antenna, and
requires no ground for proper operation at the antenna,
or at the shack. You don't need an RF ground at all.
In the case of a vertical, the RF ground should be
under the antenna if a monopole. IE: ground radials under
a ground mount, or elevated radials for a ground plane.
With either one of these, no RF ground is required for
the shack. Ditto for a half wave vertical, which is a
complete antenna. The only worry with it, is feed line
radiation, which is a bit different issue. It just needs
to be decoupled for the best operation.
But that is something to be considered with any antenna,
including the dipoles.
The only ground I use at the shack is the safety ground
for line voltage gear.. All lightning grounding must be
at the antenna/mast, and at the entrance to the shack.
"ground window".
I quit using a shack RF ground in the mid 90's or so..
Ain't missed it all at so far... I actually had more
issues when running high power "KW+" with a shack RF
ground vs not using one.
The use of the ground wire tuning may well help it work
better on certain bands to prevent a hot shack.
But I consider it a band aid to help hide problems that
actually should be addressed at the antenna. Or in a perfect
world at least..
BTW, I do not agree with the notion that an antenna needs to
be resonant. That is another wives tail, as pointed out by
Cecil. Even a dipole that is .05 WL long will radiate nearly
all power that is applied to it. And antennas are reciprocal
between radiating, and receiving.
The trick is getting the power to and from the small antenna
without it turning into heat. :/ There can be problems with
excess loss, but it's not the element's fault for being non
resonant.
IE: I don't believe in RF grounds in the shack unless
the antenna is fed directly from the shack. Which
is fairly rare for me, but I have done it on 160m a
few times..
My way of thinking is that an RF ground should always
be a part of the antenna itself, preferably away from
the shack. IE: a dipole is a complete antenna, and
requires no ground for proper operation at the antenna,
or at the shack. You don't need an RF ground at all.
In the case of a vertical, the RF ground should be
under the antenna if a monopole. IE: ground radials under
a ground mount, or elevated radials for a ground plane.
With either one of these, no RF ground is required for
the shack. Ditto for a half wave vertical, which is a
complete antenna. The only worry with it, is feed line
radiation, which is a bit different issue. It just needs
to be decoupled for the best operation.
But that is something to be considered with any antenna,
including the dipoles.
The only ground I use at the shack is the safety ground
for line voltage gear.. All lightning grounding must be
at the antenna/mast, and at the entrance to the shack.
"ground window".
I quit using a shack RF ground in the mid 90's or so..
Ain't missed it all at so far... I actually had more
issues when running high power "KW+" with a shack RF
ground vs not using one.
The use of the ground wire tuning may well help it work
better on certain bands to prevent a hot shack.
But I consider it a band aid to help hide problems that
actually should be addressed at the antenna. Or in a perfect
world at least..
BTW, I do not agree with the notion that an antenna needs to
be resonant. That is another wives tail, as pointed out by
Cecil. Even a dipole that is .05 WL long will radiate nearly
all power that is applied to it. And antennas are reciprocal
between radiating, and receiving.
The trick is getting the power to and from the small antenna
without it turning into heat. :/ There can be problems with
excess loss, but it's not the element's fault for being non
resonant.
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 26, 2013, 3:59:05 AM4/26/13
to
<nm...@wt.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:47706443-ad79-4999...@googlegroups.com...
> I'm probably known as the anti-ground.. lol..
> IE: I don't believe in RF grounds in the shack unless
> the antenna is fed directly from the shack. Which
> is fairly rare for me, but I have done it on 160m a
> few times..
> My way of thinking is that an RF ground should always
> be a part of the antenna itself, preferably away from
> the shack. IE: a dipole is a complete antenna, and
> requires no ground for proper operation at the antenna,
> or at the shack. You don't need an RF ground at all.
Your dipole is not the dipole but the monopole with the one radial.
> IE: I don't believe in RF grounds in the shack unless
> the antenna is fed directly from the shack. Which
> is fairly rare for me, but I have done it on 160m a
> few times..
> My way of thinking is that an RF ground should always
> be a part of the antenna itself, preferably away from
> the shack. IE: a dipole is a complete antenna, and
> requires no ground for proper operation at the antenna,
> or at the shack. You don't need an RF ground at all.
>
> In the case of a vertical, the RF ground should be
> under the antenna if a monopole. IE: ground radials under
> a ground mount, or elevated radials for a ground plane.
Your dipole is a horizontal monopole with the one radial.
> In the case of a vertical, the RF ground should be
> under the antenna if a monopole. IE: ground radials under
> a ground mount, or elevated radials for a ground plane.
The vertical monopole can have only one radial.
More radials is necessary for a strong stations.
Do you understand?
The only difference between your monopole and your vertical antenna is the
direction.
Do you agree?
S*
nm...@wt.net
Apr 26, 2013, 11:20:00 AM4/26/13
to
On Friday, April 26, 2013 2:59:05 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
IE: a dipole is a complete antenna, and
>
> > requires no ground for proper operation at the antenna,
>
> > or at the shack. You don't need an RF ground at all.
>
>
>
> Your dipole is not the dipole but the monopole with the one radial.
A monopole with one opposite radial is a dipole. :/
IE: a dipole is a complete antenna, and
>
> > requires no ground for proper operation at the antenna,
>
> > or at the shack. You don't need an RF ground at all.
>
>
>
> Your dipole is not the dipole but the monopole with the one radial.
>
> >
>
> > In the case of a vertical, the RF ground should be
>
> > under the antenna if a monopole. IE: ground radials under
>
> > a ground mount, or elevated radials for a ground plane.
>
>
>
> Your dipole is a horizontal monopole with the one radial.
>
> The vertical monopole can have only one radial.
I suspect that statement is going to be quite a shock to
> The vertical monopole can have only one radial.
the hundreds of stations that lay out 120 or more of them.
>
>
>
> More radials is necessary for a strong stations.
ground conductivity, the number of radials required under a monopole
will depend on it's height above ground in wavelength.
>
> Do you understand?
Probably, when I'm under the clinical supervision of a
doktor. :/
>
>
>
> The only difference between your monopole and your vertical antenna is the
>
> direction.
>
> Do you agree?
it to a cat.
In free space, the only difference between a vertical dipole,
and a horizontal dipole is direction.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 26, 2013, 11:29:19 AM4/26/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> Your dipole is not the dipole but the monopole with the one radial.
A dipole is a dipole.
> Your dipole is not the dipole but the monopole with the one radial.
You are an idiot.
> Your dipole is a horizontal monopole with the one radial.
You are an idiot.
> The vertical monopole can have only one radial.
>
> More radials is necessary for a strong stations.
currents, reduce ground losses, and a predictable impedence.
> Do you understand?
You understand nothing.
> The only difference between your monopole and your vertical antenna is the
> direction.
identical.
But the feedpoint impedences and feed method are different.
> Do you agree?
You understand nothing.
You are an idiot.
--
Jim Pennino
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 26, 2013, 11:52:18 AM4/26/13
to
<nm...@wt.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:ab8e05cf-90f2-48cd...@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 2:59:05 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>
>> Your dipole is not the dipole but the monopole with the one radial.
>
> A monopole with one opposite radial is a dipole. :/
"A dipole is a symmetrical antenna, as it is composed of two symmetrical
>>
>> Your dipole is not the dipole but the monopole with the one radial.
>
> A monopole with one opposite radial is a dipole. :/
ungrounded elements. Therefore it works best when fed by a balanced
transmission line, such as a ladder line." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
>
>>
>>
>> The only difference between your monopole and your vertical antenna is
>> the
>>
>> direction.
>>
>> Do you agree?
>
> No, because you are mislabeling a dog, and trying to compare
> it to a cat.
>
> In free space, the only difference between a vertical dipole,
> and a horizontal dipole is direction.
Dipole has "two symmetrical ungrounded elements".
>>
>>
>> The only difference between your monopole and your vertical antenna is
>> the
>>
>> direction.
>>
>> Do you agree?
>
> No, because you are mislabeling a dog, and trying to compare
> it to a cat.
>
> In free space, the only difference between a vertical dipole,
> and a horizontal dipole is direction.
Your dipole has the one grounded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipole_antenna_in_meters.png
A Dog and a cat are animals. But quite different.
The name "dipole" is like animals.
The dipole with grounded one leg is quite different from the "symmetrical
dipole".
Do you agree?
S*
W5DXP
Apr 26, 2013, 12:21:35 PM4/26/13
to
On Friday, April 26, 2013 10:20:00 AM UTC-5, nm...@wt.net wrote:
> In free space, the only difference between a vertical dipole,
> and a horizontal dipole is direction.
So --- which way is up? :)
> In free space, the only difference between a vertical dipole,
> and a horizontal dipole is direction.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com
W5DXP
Apr 26, 2013, 12:25:16 PM4/26/13
to
On Friday, April 26, 2013 10:52:18 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> The dipole with grounded one leg is quite different from the "symmetrical
> dipole".
According to the official IEEE definition of a "dipole", it is any antenna with approximately the same radiation pattern as a dipole.
> The dipole with grounded one leg is quite different from the "symmetrical
> dipole".
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com
nm...@wt.net
Apr 26, 2013, 12:28:57 PM4/26/13
to
On Friday, April 26, 2013 11:21:35 AM UTC-5, W5DXP wrote:
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 10:20:00 AM UTC-5, nm...@wt.net wrote:
>
> > In free space, the only difference between a vertical dipole,
>
> > and a horizontal dipole is direction.
>
>
>
> So --- which way is up? :)
>
Good question.. :)
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 10:20:00 AM UTC-5, nm...@wt.net wrote:
>
> > In free space, the only difference between a vertical dipole,
>
> > and a horizontal dipole is direction.
>
>
>
> So --- which way is up? :)
>
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 26, 2013, 12:37:32 PM4/26/13
to
Yep.
> Your dipole has the one grounded:
Nope.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipole_antenna_in_meters.png
No ground here idiot.
> A Dog and a cat are animals. But quite different.
> The name "dipole" is like animals.
> The dipole with grounded one leg is quite different from the "symmetrical
> dipole".
> Do you agree?
> S*
I agree everything you just said is ignorant gibberish.
--
Jim Pennino
> Your dipole has the one grounded:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipole_antenna_in_meters.png
No ground here idiot.
> A Dog and a cat are animals. But quite different.
> The name "dipole" is like animals.
> The dipole with grounded one leg is quite different from the "symmetrical
> dipole".
> Do you agree?
> S*
--
Jim Pennino
Irv Finkleman
Apr 26, 2013, 1:38:06 PM4/26/13
to
Beware of any inputs from this bialek guy! He appears to be either a troll
or
a blithering idiot. If you let him drag you into a discussion of his point
of view
he will lead you on endlessly and ignorantly!.
Irv VE6BP
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:517a33ca$0$1216$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
or
a blithering idiot. If you let him drag you into a discussion of his point
of view
he will lead you on endlessly and ignorantly!.
Irv VE6BP
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:517a33ca$0$1216$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
Wayne
Apr 26, 2013, 2:01:42 PM4/26/13
to
"Irv Finkleman" wrote in message news:_Xyet.93$Zw...@newsfe21.iad...
>Beware of any inputs from this bialek guy! He appears to be either a troll
>or
>a blithering idiot. If you let him drag you into a discussion of his point
>of view
>he will lead you on endlessly and ignorantly!.
>Irv VE6BP
Wayne W5GIE
(in exile in W6 land)
tom
Apr 26, 2013, 8:34:48 PM4/26/13
to
On 4/26/2013 2:59 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> <nm...@wt.net> napisal w wiadomosci
He's baaaaack!
And he's still really wrong.
This should be fun!
tom
K0TAR
> <nm...@wt.net> napisal w wiadomosci
>
> Your dipole is not the dipole but the monopole with the one radial.
<snip>
> Your dipole is not the dipole but the monopole with the one radial.
He's baaaaack!
And he's still really wrong.
This should be fun!
tom
K0TAR
nm...@wt.net
Apr 27, 2013, 11:13:52 AM4/27/13
to
On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:06 PM UTC-5, Irv Finkleman wrote:
> Beware of any inputs from this bialek guy! He appears to be either a troll
>
> or
>
> a blithering idiot. If you let him drag you into a discussion of his point
>
> of view
>
> he will lead you on endlessly and ignorantly!.
>
>
>
> Irv VE6BP
It's good wholesome entertainment for the whole family. :)
> Beware of any inputs from this bialek guy! He appears to be either a troll
>
> or
>
> a blithering idiot. If you let him drag you into a discussion of his point
>
> of view
>
> he will lead you on endlessly and ignorantly!.
>
>
>
> Irv VE6BP
Wayne
Apr 27, 2013, 12:25:52 PM4/27/13
to
wrote in message
news:db78ac7e-1d29-4746...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:06 PM UTC-5, Irv Finkleman wrote:
> Beware of any inputs from this bialek guy! He appears to be either a
> troll
>
> or
>
> a blithering idiot. If you let him drag you into a discussion of his point
>
> of view
>
> he will lead you on endlessly and ignorantly!.
>
>
>
> Irv VE6BP
Well, you must admit we could use something to jumpstart discussions on this
newsgroup.
Maybe SB can explain the difference between a monopole with a single
ungrounded radial, and a dipole.
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 27, 2013, 12:46:39 PM4/27/13
to
"W5DXP" <w5...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:d582bbaf-7ab6-4f48...@googlegroups.com...
(doughnut) symmetrical about the axis of the dipole. The radiation is
maximum at right angles to the dipole, dropping off to zero on the antenna's
axis. The theoretical maximum gain of a Hertzian dipole is 10 log 1.5 or
1.76 dBi. The maximum theoretical gain of a ?/2-dipole is 10 log 1.64 or
2.15 dBi."
The antenna like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipole_antenna_in_meters.png
". However, coax is not symmetrical and thus not a balanced feeder. It is
unbalanced because the outer shield is connected to earth potential at the
other end. When a balanced antenna such as a dipole is fed with an
unbalanced feeder, common mode currents can cause the coax line to radiate
in addition to the antenna itself,[5] and the radiation pattern may be
asymmetrically distorted"
Such antenna is MECHANICALY symmetrical.
But electrically is rather like the Marconi monopole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A6-3EN.jpg
Remember: The grounded leg is the radial.
S*
Rob
Apr 27, 2013, 12:53:52 PM4/27/13
to
You think that because one end of the coax has its shield grounded,
the other end has its shield at ground potential.
That is not true. At radio frequencies, there can be a potential
at one end of a conductor even when the other end is grounded.
It will result in a radiating outer conductor of the coax, but not
in a grounded leg of the dipole.
the other end has its shield at ground potential.
That is not true. At radio frequencies, there can be a potential
at one end of a conductor even when the other end is grounded.
It will result in a radiating outer conductor of the coax, but not
in a grounded leg of the dipole.
Irv Finkleman
Apr 27, 2013, 1:06:10 PM4/27/13
to
Yes -- I must admit now that I look forward to his
inputs which are amusing if nothing else.
Entertainment -- YES! Information -- NOT!.
Irv VE6BP
<nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:db78ac7e-1d29-4746...@googlegroups.com...
inputs which are amusing if nothing else.
Entertainment -- YES! Information -- NOT!.
Irv VE6BP
<nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:db78ac7e-1d29-4746...@googlegroups.com...
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 27, 2013, 1:12:53 PM4/27/13
to
"Rob" <nom...@example.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:slrnkno0l0...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
"The radiation is
maximum at right angles to the dipole, dropping off to zero on the antenna's
axis."
Who of yours want to have the directional antenna?
maximum at right angles to the dipole, dropping off to zero on the antenna's
axis."
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 27, 2013, 1:21:58 PM4/27/13
to
Uzytkownik "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:klgu0i$2m6$1...@dont-email.me...
the ground.
The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
antennas. Radial is one of them.
Ground must be adequate to kW.
Monopole is not directional.
Dipole is directional.
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 27, 2013, 1:27:58 PM4/27/13
to
"Irv Finkleman" <fin...@shaw.ca> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:WzTet.1996$MS1....@newsfe05.iad...
> Yes -- I must admit now that I look forward to his
> inputs which are amusing if nothing else.
> Entertainment -- YES! Information -- NOT!.
Your opinion is about Wiki: My inputs are From:
> inputs which are amusing if nothing else.
> Entertainment -- YES! Information -- NOT!.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
S*
Rob
Apr 27, 2013, 2:26:33 PM4/27/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax), is
> the ground.
Wrong.
> Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax), is
> the ground.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 27, 2013, 2:29:50 PM4/27/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "W5DXP" <w5...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:d582bbaf-7ab6-4f48...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 10:52:18 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>> The dipole with grounded one leg is quite different from the "symmetrical
>>> dipole".
>>
>> According to the official IEEE definition of a "dipole", it is any antenna
>> with approximately the same radiation pattern as a dipole.
>
> Of course: "Dipoles have a radiation pattern, shaped like a toroid
> (doughnut) symmetrical about the axis of the dipole. The radiation is
> maximum at right angles to the dipole, dropping off to zero on the antenna's
> axis. The theoretical maximum gain of a Hertzian dipole is 10 log 1.5 or
> 1.76 dBi. The maximum theoretical gain of a ?/2-dipole is 10 log 1.64 or
> 2.15 dBi."
True.
>
> "W5DXP" <w5...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:d582bbaf-7ab6-4f48...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 10:52:18 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>> The dipole with grounded one leg is quite different from the "symmetrical
>>> dipole".
>>
>> According to the official IEEE definition of a "dipole", it is any antenna
>> with approximately the same radiation pattern as a dipole.
>
> Of course: "Dipoles have a radiation pattern, shaped like a toroid
> (doughnut) symmetrical about the axis of the dipole. The radiation is
> maximum at right angles to the dipole, dropping off to zero on the antenna's
> axis. The theoretical maximum gain of a Hertzian dipole is 10 log 1.5 or
> 1.76 dBi. The maximum theoretical gain of a ?/2-dipole is 10 log 1.64 or
> 2.15 dBi."
> The antenna like this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipole_antenna_in_meters.png
>
> ". However, coax is not symmetrical and thus not a balanced feeder. It is
> unbalanced because the outer shield is connected to earth potential at the
> other end. When a balanced antenna such as a dipole is fed with an
> unbalanced feeder, common mode currents can cause the coax line to radiate
> in addition to the antenna itself,[5] and the radiation pattern may be
> asymmetrically distorted"
The outer shield may or may not be connected to earth potenial anywhere.
> Such antenna is MECHANICALY symmetrical.
> But electrically is rather like the Marconi monopole:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A6-3EN.jpg
The antenna is the antenna and the feedline is the feedline.
Whether or not the feedline radiates is totally irrelevant to what the
antenna does.
This is something you are totally incapable of understanding.
> Remember: The grounded leg is the radial.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 27, 2013, 2:32:35 PM4/27/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "Irv Finkleman" <fin...@shaw.ca> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
Your interpretation of the quotes is from a very damaged brain.
--
Jim Pennino
>
> "Irv Finkleman" <fin...@shaw.ca> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
> news:WzTet.1996$MS1....@newsfe05.iad...
>> Yes -- I must admit now that I look forward to his
>> inputs which are amusing if nothing else.
>> Entertainment -- YES! Information -- NOT!.
>
> Your opinion is about Wiki: My inputs are From:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
> S*
Your quotes are from Wiki.
>> Yes -- I must admit now that I look forward to his
>> inputs which are amusing if nothing else.
>> Entertainment -- YES! Information -- NOT!.
>
> Your opinion is about Wiki: My inputs are From:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna
> S*
Your interpretation of the quotes is from a very damaged brain.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 27, 2013, 2:37:50 PM4/27/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax), is
> the ground.
> The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
> antennas. Radial is one of them.
> Ground must be adequate to kW.
All gibberish, as usual.
> Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax), is
> the ground.
> The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
> antennas. Radial is one of them.
> Ground must be adequate to kW.
> Monopole is not directional.
Wrong; a monopole can be directional, all you have to to is tilt it slightly.
--
Jim Pennino
Wayne
Apr 27, 2013, 7:20:59 PM4/27/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
news:517c0935$0$26710$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
Uzytkownik "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:klgu0i$2m6$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> wrote in message
>> news:db78ac7e-1d29-4746...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:06 PM UTC-5, Irv Finkleman wrote:
>>
>> Maybe SB can explain the difference between a monopole with a single
>> ungrounded radial, and a dipole.
>Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax), is
>the ground.
>The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>antennas. Radial is one of them.
>Ground must be adequate to kW.
What if the single ungrounded quarter wave radial is in line with the
>> Maybe SB can explain the difference between a monopole with a single
>> ungrounded radial, and a dipole.
>Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax), is
>the ground.
>The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>antennas. Radial is one of them.
>Ground must be adequate to kW.
quarter wave radiator?
Is it still a monopole?
>Monopole is not directional.
Does this assume the monopole is vertical?
What if it is horizontal? Is it still non-directional?
>Dipole is directional.
>S*
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 28, 2013, 4:00:33 AM4/28/13
to
news:klhmfb$2ib$1...@dont-email.me...
The monopole radiate from the end part of the wire. So the one mast is
enough.
But you can make the two masts.
> What if it is horizontal? Is it still non-directional?
Of course.
To have the directional antenna you must have the antenna array:
"An antenna array is a group of radiators whose currents are of different
amplitudes and phases. They use electromagnetic wave interference phenomena
to enhance the radiative signal in the desired direction and diminish it in
the non-desired direction". From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_array_(electromagnetic)
The electrically symmetrical dipole is the antenna array.
The whip antenna is always non-directional. But in mountains it work better
if it is horizontal.
Each antenna made of wire radiate from the end piece of the wire. So the
wertical radiate in the all direction but tangent to the Earht surface.
The horizontal radiate in direction of ionsphere. It is usefull in moutains.
The directional antenna has the lobes.
The monopole antenna shorter than 1/4 wave has no lobes.
But a long wire antenna have lobes. There are the many "poles" (nodes) and
the interference take place.
S*
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517c0935$0$26710$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
> Uzytkownik "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:klgu0i$2m6$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:db78ac7e-1d29-4746...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:06 PM UTC-5, Irv Finkleman wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Maybe SB can explain the difference between a monopole with a single
>>> ungrounded radial, and a dipole.
>
>>Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax), is
>>the ground.
>>The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>>antennas. Radial is one of them.
>>Ground must be adequate to kW.
>
> What if the single ungrounded quarter wave radial is in line with the
> quarter wave radiator?
> Is it still a monopole?
Of course.
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517c0935$0$26710$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
> Uzytkownik "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:klgu0i$2m6$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:db78ac7e-1d29-4746...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:06 PM UTC-5, Irv Finkleman wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Maybe SB can explain the difference between a monopole with a single
>>> ungrounded radial, and a dipole.
>
>>Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax), is
>>the ground.
>>The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>>antennas. Radial is one of them.
>>Ground must be adequate to kW.
>
> What if the single ungrounded quarter wave radial is in line with the
> quarter wave radiator?
> Is it still a monopole?
>
>>Monopole is not directional.
>
> Does this assume the monopole is vertical?
In the space no the directions.
>>Monopole is not directional.
>
> Does this assume the monopole is vertical?
The monopole radiate from the end part of the wire. So the one mast is
enough.
But you can make the two masts.
> What if it is horizontal? Is it still non-directional?
To have the directional antenna you must have the antenna array:
"An antenna array is a group of radiators whose currents are of different
amplitudes and phases. They use electromagnetic wave interference phenomena
to enhance the radiative signal in the desired direction and diminish it in
the non-desired direction". From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_array_(electromagnetic)
The electrically symmetrical dipole is the antenna array.
The whip antenna is always non-directional. But in mountains it work better
if it is horizontal.
Each antenna made of wire radiate from the end piece of the wire. So the
wertical radiate in the all direction but tangent to the Earht surface.
The horizontal radiate in direction of ionsphere. It is usefull in moutains.
The directional antenna has the lobes.
The monopole antenna shorter than 1/4 wave has no lobes.
But a long wire antenna have lobes. There are the many "poles" (nodes) and
the interference take place.
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 28, 2013, 4:03:32 AM4/28/13
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:ugit4a-...@mail.specsol.com...
> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>> Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax),
>> is
>> the ground.
>> The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>> antennas. Radial is one of them.
>> Ground must be adequate to kW.
>
> All gibberish, as usual.
>
>> Monopole is not directional.
>
> Wrong; a monopole can be directional, all you have to do is tilt it
>
>> Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax),
>> is
>> the ground.
>> The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>> antennas. Radial is one of them.
>> Ground must be adequate to kW.
>
> All gibberish, as usual.
>
>> Monopole is not directional.
>
> slightly.
Read my answer for Wayne.
S*
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 28, 2013, 12:37:33 PM4/28/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
All of your "answers" are ignorant babble.
--
Jim Pennino
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 28, 2013, 12:42:22 PM4/28/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> In the space no the directions.
> The monopole radiate from the end part of the wire. So the one mast is
> enough.
> But you can make the two masts.
Pure gibberish.
> In the space no the directions.
> The monopole radiate from the end part of the wire. So the one mast is
> enough.
> But you can make the two masts.
> To have the directional antenna you must have the antenna array:
> "An antenna array is a group of radiators whose currents are of different
> amplitudes and phases. They use electromagnetic wave interference phenomena
> to enhance the radiative signal in the desired direction and diminish it in
> the non-desired direction". From:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_array_(electromagnetic)
> The electrically symmetrical dipole is the antenna array.
> The whip antenna is always non-directional. But in mountains it work better
> if it is horizontal.
> Each antenna made of wire radiate from the end piece of the wire. So the
> wertical radiate in the all direction but tangent to the Earht surface.
> The horizontal radiate in direction of ionsphere. It is usefull in moutains.
> The directional antenna has the lobes.
> The monopole antenna shorter than 1/4 wave has no lobes.
You are still a babbling idiot.
--
Jim Pennino
Wayne
Apr 28, 2013, 4:28:03 PM4/28/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:klhmfb$2ib$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517c0935$0$26710$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
> Uzytkownik "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:klgu0i$2m6$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:db78ac7e-1d29-4746...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:06 PM UTC-5, Irv Finkleman wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Maybe SB can explain the difference between a monopole with a single
>>> ungrounded radial, and a dipole.
>
>>Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax), is
>>the ground.
>>The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>>antennas. Radial is one of them.
>>Ground must be adequate to kW.
>
> What if the single ungrounded quarter wave radial is in line with the
> quarter wave radiator?
> Is it still a monopole?
Wow...you gave a lot to digest.
Just to understand the discussion, let's address the monopole with one
radial.
Assuming the monopole is 1/4 wave long, and has a 1/4 wave long radial.
The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
How does that configuration of a monopole with one radial differ from a
dipole?
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 29, 2013, 4:50:31 AM4/29/13
to
news:klk0ip$qdg$1...@dont-email.me...
frequency but not in phase. The both ends radiate with the same intensity.
The Marconi antenna has only one radiated leg. It is almost in the free
space (masts are high).
The horizontal dipole radiate in one horizontal direction only. The vertical
in all horizontal directions. But the mast must be very high.
The horizontal, vertical or tilted monopole radiate in all directions. Your
cell phone has the monopole.
S*
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517cd721$0$1227$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517cd721$0$1227$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
>>>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:06 PM UTC-5, Irv Finkleman wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe SB can explain the difference between a monopole with a single
>>>> ungrounded radial, and a dipole.
>>
>>>Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax),
>>>is the ground.
>>>The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>>>antennas. Radial is one of them.
>>>Ground must be adequate to kW.
>>
>> What if the single ungrounded quarter wave radial is in line with the
>> quarter wave radiator?
>> Is it still a monopole?
>
> # Of course.
>
> Wow...you gave a lot to digest.
>
> Just to understand the discussion, let's address the monopole with one
> radial.
>
> Assuming the monopole is 1/4 wave long, and has a 1/4 wave long radial.
> The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe SB can explain the difference between a monopole with a single
>>>> ungrounded radial, and a dipole.
>>
>>>Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax),
>>>is the ground.
>>>The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>>>antennas. Radial is one of them.
>>>Ground must be adequate to kW.
>>
>> What if the single ungrounded quarter wave radial is in line with the
>> quarter wave radiator?
>> Is it still a monopole?
>
> # Of course.
>
> Wow...you gave a lot to digest.
>
> Just to understand the discussion, let's address the monopole with one
> radial.
>
> Assuming the monopole is 1/4 wave long, and has a 1/4 wave long radial.
> The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
>
> How does that configuration of a monopole with one radial differ from a
> dipole?
The first dipole was the Hertz dipole. The both legs were fed with the same
> How does that configuration of a monopole with one radial differ from a
> dipole?
frequency but not in phase. The both ends radiate with the same intensity.
The Marconi antenna has only one radiated leg. It is almost in the free
space (masts are high).
The horizontal dipole radiate in one horizontal direction only. The vertical
in all horizontal directions. But the mast must be very high.
The horizontal, vertical or tilted monopole radiate in all directions. Your
cell phone has the monopole.
S*
Rob
Apr 29, 2013, 5:51:55 AM4/29/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
No Szczepan!
> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
You keep saying that, but it is wrong.
When a coax shield is grounded at one end, and after a considerable
length of coax it is connected at the dipole, the shield at that
end is no longer ground.
Especially when the length of the coax is about a quarter wavelength,
it will have nothing to do with ground.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 29, 2013, 11:30:02 AM4/29/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
What coax?
> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
> The first dipole was the Hertz dipole. The both legs were fed with the same
> frequency but not in phase. The both ends radiate with the same intensity.
> The Marconi antenna has only one radiated leg. It is almost in the free
> space (masts are high).
> The horizontal dipole radiate in one horizontal direction only. The vertical
> in all horizontal directions. But the mast must be very high.
> The horizontal, vertical or tilted monopole radiate in all directions. Your
> cell phone has the monopole.
--
Jim Pennino
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 29, 2013, 12:42:07 PM4/29/13
to
U�ytkownik "Rob" <nom...@example.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:slrnknsglr...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>
> No Szczepan!
> You keep saying that, but it is wrong.
Not me but Wiki:
>> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>
> No Szczepan!
> You keep saying that, but it is wrong.
"The monopole antenna was invented in 1895 by radio pioneer Guglielmo
Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter to a
wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
longer distances. For this reason it is sometimes called a Marconi antenna.
Common types of monopole antenna are the whip, rubber ducky, helical, random
wire, inverted-L and T-antenna, mast radiator, and ground plane antennas."
>
> When a coax shield is grounded at one end, and after a considerable
> length of coax it is connected at the dipole, the shield at that
> end is no longer ground.
>
> Especially when the length of the coax is about a quarter wavelength,
> it will have nothing to do with ground.
The "ground plane antenna" is also the monopole:
> When a coax shield is grounded at one end, and after a considerable
> length of coax it is connected at the dipole, the shield at that
> end is no longer ground.
>
> Especially when the length of the coax is about a quarter wavelength,
> it will have nothing to do with ground.
"To function as a ground plane, the conducting surface must be at least a
quarter of the wavelength (?/4) of the radio waves in size. In lower
frequency antennas, such as the mast radiators used for broadcast antennas,
the Earth itself (or a body of water such as a salt marsh or ocean) is used
as a ground plane. For higher frequency antennas, in the VHF or UHF range,
the ground plane can be smaller, and metal disks, screens or wires are used
as ground planes".
For radioamateurs the one wire is enough.
The dipole is useless for them. They want to "transmit for longer
distances".
But some radioameteurs use the receiving dipole to find the source of
radiation.
S*
Rob
Apr 29, 2013, 1:04:49 PM4/29/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> The "ground plane antenna" is also the monopole:
> "To function as a ground plane, the conducting surface must be at least a
> quarter of the wavelength (?/4) of the radio waves in size. In lower
> frequency antennas, such as the mast radiators used for broadcast antennas,
> the Earth itself (or a body of water such as a salt marsh or ocean) is used
> as a ground plane. For higher frequency antennas, in the VHF or UHF range,
> the ground plane can be smaller, and metal disks, screens or wires are used
> as ground planes".
Note that it does not say that it is sufficient to connect one side
> The "ground plane antenna" is also the monopole:
> "To function as a ground plane, the conducting surface must be at least a
> quarter of the wavelength (?/4) of the radio waves in size. In lower
> frequency antennas, such as the mast radiators used for broadcast antennas,
> the Earth itself (or a body of water such as a salt marsh or ocean) is used
> as a ground plane. For higher frequency antennas, in the VHF or UHF range,
> the ground plane can be smaller, and metal disks, screens or wires are used
> as ground planes".
of the antenna to the ground with a wire.
A ground plane is something different than a wire to ground.
Ian
Apr 29, 2013, 1:12:18 PM4/29/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:517ea2e2$0$1269$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> Not me but Wiki:
> "The monopole antenna was invented ...
Hello old chap.
There is surely no point in posting quotations from Wiki if you do not
understand them.
The comment about dipoles being useless for amateurs is definitely
incorrect. The dipole is a very popular design of antenna for amateur radio
use.
Regards, Rog.
news:517ea2e2$0$1269$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> Not me but Wiki:
> "The monopole antenna was invented ...
> For radioamateurs the one wire is enough. The dipole is useless for them.
> They want to "transmit for longer distances".
>
> S*
> They want to "transmit for longer distances".
>
Hello old chap.
There is surely no point in posting quotations from Wiki if you do not
understand them.
The comment about dipoles being useless for amateurs is definitely
incorrect. The dipole is a very popular design of antenna for amateur radio
use.
Regards, Rog.
Ian
Apr 29, 2013, 1:13:01 PM4/29/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:517ea2e2$0$1269$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> Not me but Wiki:
news:517ea2e2$0$1269$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> "The monopole antenna was invented ...
> For radioamateurs the one wire is enough. The dipole is useless for them.
> They want to "transmit for longer distances".
>
> They want to "transmit for longer distances".
>
> S*
Hello old chap.
There is surely no point in posting quotations from Wiki if you do not
understand them.
The comment about dipoles being useless for amateurs is definitely
incorrect. The dipole is a very popular design of antenna for amateur radio
use.
Regards, Ian.
Hello old chap.
There is surely no point in posting quotations from Wiki if you do not
understand them.
The comment about dipoles being useless for amateurs is definitely
incorrect. The dipole is a very popular design of antenna for amateur radio
use.
Wayne
Apr 29, 2013, 1:39:03 PM4/29/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:klk0ip$qdg$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517cd721$0$1227$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
>>>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:38:06 PM UTC-5, Irv Finkleman wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe SB can explain the difference between a monopole with a single
>>>> ungrounded radial, and a dipole.
>>
>>>Each radial, grounded or not (but connected to the shield of the coax),
>>>is the ground.
>>>The Earth, the Moon, a satelite and each piece of conductor is ground for
>>>antennas. Radial is one of them.
>>>Ground must be adequate to kW.
>>
>> What if the single ungrounded quarter wave radial is in line with the
>> quarter wave radiator?
>> Is it still a monopole?
>
> # Of course.
>
> Wow...you gave a lot to digest.
>
> Just to understand the discussion, let's address the monopole with one
> radial.
>
> Assuming the monopole is 1/4 wave long, and has a 1/4 wave long radial.
> The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
>
> How does that configuration of a monopole with one radial differ from a
> dipole?
if it is fed directly with coax?
And it is a dipole if it has a balanced feed?
What if the coax feedline has a quarter wave sleeve, open at the antenna but
connected to the coax at the other end?
Is it a monopole or a dipole?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 29, 2013, 1:41:19 PM4/29/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> U?ytkownik "Rob" <nom...@example.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
babbling gibberish.
>> When a coax shield is grounded at one end, and after a considerable
>> length of coax it is connected at the dipole, the shield at that
>> end is no longer ground.
>>
>> Especially when the length of the coax is about a quarter wavelength,
>> it will have nothing to do with ground.
>
> The "ground plane antenna" is also the monopole:
> "To function as a ground plane, the conducting surface must be at least a
> quarter of the wavelength (?/4) of the radio waves in size. In lower
> frequency antennas, such as the mast radiators used for broadcast antennas,
> the Earth itself (or a body of water such as a salt marsh or ocean) is used
> as a ground plane. For higher frequency antennas, in the VHF or UHF range,
> the ground plane can be smaller, and metal disks, screens or wires are used
> as ground planes".
This is true but you have no clue what it means as demonstrated by your
babbling gibberish.
> For radioamateurs the one wire is enough.
> The dipole is useless for them. They want to "transmit for longer
> distances".
>
> But some radioameteurs use the receiving dipole to find the source of
> radiation.
> S*
And all your comments are again babbling gibberish that shows you have
absolutely no understanding of anything you have read.
--
Jim Pennino
>
> U?ytkownik "Rob" <nom...@example.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
> news:slrnknsglr...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>>
>> No Szczepan!
>> You keep saying that, but it is wrong.
>
> Not me but Wiki:
> "The monopole antenna was invented in 1895 by radio pioneer Guglielmo
> Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter to a
> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
> longer distances. For this reason it is sometimes called a Marconi antenna.
> Common types of monopole antenna are the whip, rubber ducky, helical, random
> wire, inverted-L and T-antenna, mast radiator, and ground plane antennas."
This is true but you have no clue what it means as demonstrated by your
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>>
>> No Szczepan!
>> You keep saying that, but it is wrong.
>
> Not me but Wiki:
> "The monopole antenna was invented in 1895 by radio pioneer Guglielmo
> Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter to a
> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
> longer distances. For this reason it is sometimes called a Marconi antenna.
> Common types of monopole antenna are the whip, rubber ducky, helical, random
> wire, inverted-L and T-antenna, mast radiator, and ground plane antennas."
babbling gibberish.
>> When a coax shield is grounded at one end, and after a considerable
>> length of coax it is connected at the dipole, the shield at that
>> end is no longer ground.
>>
>> Especially when the length of the coax is about a quarter wavelength,
>> it will have nothing to do with ground.
>
> The "ground plane antenna" is also the monopole:
> "To function as a ground plane, the conducting surface must be at least a
> quarter of the wavelength (?/4) of the radio waves in size. In lower
> frequency antennas, such as the mast radiators used for broadcast antennas,
> the Earth itself (or a body of water such as a salt marsh or ocean) is used
> as a ground plane. For higher frequency antennas, in the VHF or UHF range,
> the ground plane can be smaller, and metal disks, screens or wires are used
> as ground planes".
babbling gibberish.
> For radioamateurs the one wire is enough.
> The dipole is useless for them. They want to "transmit for longer
> distances".
>
> But some radioameteurs use the receiving dipole to find the source of
> radiation.
> S*
absolutely no understanding of anything you have read.
--
Jim Pennino
tom
Apr 29, 2013, 11:20:18 PM4/29/13
to
>> Assuming the monopole is 1/4 wave long, and has a 1/4 wave long radial.
>> The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
>
> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
So what would happen if I connected my transmitter, which has a 50 ohm
>> The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
>
> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
{ostensibly) output with the hot lead of the coax connected to the
"radial" instead of the "monopole" and similarly with the braid?
Think long about this.
tom
K0TAR
tom
Apr 29, 2013, 11:23:24 PM4/29/13
to
tom
K0TAR
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 30, 2013, 3:40:25 AM4/30/13
to
"Ian" <no-spam...@I-am-Veggie.org> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:klm9mv$78c$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 30, 2013, 3:48:58 AM4/30/13
to
news:slrnknta1h...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
Note what Marconi did: "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal
coax and the mass (chassis) of the transmitter.
The braid has many wires. Each of them is the radial.
S*
of his transmitter to a
wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
longer distances."
wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
longer distances."
> A ground plane is something different than a wire to ground.
The nonactive leg of the popular "dipole" is connected with the braid of a
coax and the mass (chassis) of the transmitter.
The braid has many wires. Each of them is the radial.
S*
Rob
Apr 30, 2013, 4:00:35 AM4/30/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "Rob" <nom...@example.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> news:slrnknta1h...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> The "ground plane antenna" is also the monopole:
>>> "To function as a ground plane, the conducting surface must be at least a
>>> quarter of the wavelength (?/4) of the radio waves in size. In lower
>>> frequency antennas, such as the mast radiators used for broadcast
>>> antennas,
>>> the Earth itself (or a body of water such as a salt marsh or ocean) is
>>> used
>>> as a ground plane. For higher frequency antennas, in the VHF or UHF
>>> range,
>>> the ground plane can be smaller, and metal disks, screens or wires are
>>> used
>>> as ground planes".
>>
>> Note that it does not say that it is sufficient to connect one side
>> of the antenna to the ground with a wire.
>
> Note what Marconi did: "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal
> of his transmitter to a
> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
> longer distances."
Marconi was using low frequencies where the wavelength is so long that
>
> "Rob" <nom...@example.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> news:slrnknta1h...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> The "ground plane antenna" is also the monopole:
>>> "To function as a ground plane, the conducting surface must be at least a
>>> quarter of the wavelength (?/4) of the radio waves in size. In lower
>>> frequency antennas, such as the mast radiators used for broadcast
>>> antennas,
>>> the Earth itself (or a body of water such as a salt marsh or ocean) is
>>> used
>>> as a ground plane. For higher frequency antennas, in the VHF or UHF
>>> range,
>>> the ground plane can be smaller, and metal disks, screens or wires are
>>> used
>>> as ground planes".
>>
>> Note that it does not say that it is sufficient to connect one side
>> of the antenna to the ground with a wire.
>
> Note what Marconi did: "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal
> of his transmitter to a
> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
> longer distances."
his wires are comparatively short.
At frequencies where amateurs operate, the wavelength is comparable
to the length of the feedline and it no longer works like that.
>> A ground plane is something different than a wire to ground.
>
> The nonactive leg of the popular "dipole" is connected with the braid of a
> coax and the mass (chassis) of the transmitter.
> The braid has many wires. Each of them is the radial.
> S*
A quarter wave radial works because when one end is floating the other
end has a low impedance.
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 30, 2013, 4:08:45 AM4/30/13
to
news:klmb1j$4f8$1...@dont-email.me...
The true horizontal dipole (electrically symmetric) radiate in one direction
only. A monopole in all directions.
satellite chassis).
> And it is a dipole if it has a balanced feed?
The true dipole is electrically symmetric. The same voltages but in the
opposite phase.
Thank this the interference take place and a dipole has the main lobe and
many side lobes.
With the monopole no lobes.
The sleeve, the braid of the coax and so on are only the better ground.
Dipole must be electrically symmetric.
If one leg is connected to the any version of ground such "dipole" radiate
as monopole.
S*
only. A monopole in all directions.
>
> So a half wave wire broken at the center is a monopole with a single
> radial if it is fed directly with coax?
Yes. The one leg is the radiator and the second is a ground (like a
> So a half wave wire broken at the center is a monopole with a single
> radial if it is fed directly with coax?
satellite chassis).
> And it is a dipole if it has a balanced feed?
opposite phase.
Thank this the interference take place and a dipole has the main lobe and
many side lobes.
With the monopole no lobes.
>
> What if the coax feedline has a quarter wave sleeve, open at the antenna
> but connected to the coax at the other end?
> Is it a monopole or a dipole?
> What if the coax feedline has a quarter wave sleeve, open at the antenna
> but connected to the coax at the other end?
> Is it a monopole or a dipole?
"Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter to a
wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
longer distances".
As you know are many version of ground because the soil is not the best.
wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
longer distances".
The sleeve, the braid of the coax and so on are only the better ground.
Dipole must be electrically symmetric.
If one leg is connected to the any version of ground such "dipole" radiate
as monopole.
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 30, 2013, 4:17:13 AM4/30/13
to
"tom" <news...@taring.org> napisal w wiadomosci
news:ltCdnZafQce2pOLM...@iphouse.net...
> On 4/29/2013 10:20 PM, tom wrote:
>> On 4/29/2013 3:50 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
>>>> Assuming the monopole is 1/4 wave long, and has a 1/4 wave long radial.
>>>> The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
>>>
>>> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>>
>> So what would happen if I connected my transmitter, which has a 50 ohm
>> {ostensibly) output with the hot lead of the coax connected to the
>> "radial" instead of the "monopole" and similarly with the braid?
>>
>> Think long about this.
>>
>
>> On 4/29/2013 3:50 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
>>>> Assuming the monopole is 1/4 wave long, and has a 1/4 wave long radial.
>>>> The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
>>>
>>> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>>
>> So what would happen if I connected my transmitter, which has a 50 ohm
>> {ostensibly) output with the hot lead of the coax connected to the
>> "radial" instead of the "monopole" and similarly with the braid?
>>
>> Think long about this.
>>
>
> Just to clearly understand where you are on how this really works.
I am not sure if I understand you.
If you have the mechanically symmetric dipole than one leg with the coax
braid works as the radiator and the second as the ground.
If you change the terminals than your radial will be the radiator.
Do not you have any possibility to check which leg is active?
S*
nm...@wt.net
Apr 30, 2013, 11:20:57 AM4/30/13
to
On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:17:13 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> I am not sure if I understand you.
Gee... you think?
> I am not sure if I understand you.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 30, 2013, 12:03:02 PM4/30/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "Rob" <nom...@example.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
>> A ground plane is something different than a wire to ground.
>
> The nonactive leg of the popular "dipole" is connected with the braid of a
> coax and the mass (chassis) of the transmitter.
Pure babble.
Both legs of a dipole are "active".
Not all dipoles are feed with coax.
Some transmitters have no chassis or metal mass of any kind, a good
example of which would be radiosondes before transistors were invented.
They were build on a non-conductive sheet using point to point wiring
and had no metal mass, no chassis, no ground, and were hung from
balloons.
> The braid has many wires. Each of them is the radial.
Pure babbling, nonsense.
--
Jim Pennino
>
> "Rob" <nom...@example.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
> news:slrnknta1h...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> The "ground plane antenna" is also the monopole:
>>> "To function as a ground plane, the conducting surface must be at least a
>>> quarter of the wavelength (?/4) of the radio waves in size. In lower
>>> frequency antennas, such as the mast radiators used for broadcast
>>> antennas,
>>> the Earth itself (or a body of water such as a salt marsh or ocean) is
>>> used
>>> as a ground plane. For higher frequency antennas, in the VHF or UHF
>>> range,
>>> the ground plane can be smaller, and metal disks, screens or wires are
>>> used
>>> as ground planes".
>>
>> Note that it does not say that it is sufficient to connect one side
>> of the antenna to the ground with a wire.
>
> Note what Marconi did: "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal
> of his transmitter to a
> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
> longer distances."
Irrelevant to anything said, but you are too ignorant to understand why.
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> The "ground plane antenna" is also the monopole:
>>> "To function as a ground plane, the conducting surface must be at least a
>>> quarter of the wavelength (?/4) of the radio waves in size. In lower
>>> frequency antennas, such as the mast radiators used for broadcast
>>> antennas,
>>> the Earth itself (or a body of water such as a salt marsh or ocean) is
>>> used
>>> as a ground plane. For higher frequency antennas, in the VHF or UHF
>>> range,
>>> the ground plane can be smaller, and metal disks, screens or wires are
>>> used
>>> as ground planes".
>>
>> Note that it does not say that it is sufficient to connect one side
>> of the antenna to the ground with a wire.
>
> Note what Marconi did: "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal
> of his transmitter to a
> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
> longer distances."
>> A ground plane is something different than a wire to ground.
>
> The nonactive leg of the popular "dipole" is connected with the braid of a
> coax and the mass (chassis) of the transmitter.
Both legs of a dipole are "active".
Not all dipoles are feed with coax.
Some transmitters have no chassis or metal mass of any kind, a good
example of which would be radiosondes before transistors were invented.
They were build on a non-conductive sheet using point to point wiring
and had no metal mass, no chassis, no ground, and were hung from
balloons.
> The braid has many wires. Each of them is the radial.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 30, 2013, 12:05:54 PM4/30/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "Ian" <no-spam...@I-am-Veggie.org> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
It doesn't matter but you are too stupid to understand why.
And both methods of feed are very popular.
Repeat the following until it sinks into your only two functioning brain
cells:
An antenna is an antenna and a feedline is a feedline.
--
Jim Pennino
>
> "Ian" <no-spam...@I-am-Veggie.org> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
And both methods of feed are very popular.
Repeat the following until it sinks into your only two functioning brain
cells:
An antenna is an antenna and a feedline is a feedline.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 30, 2013, 12:09:19 PM4/30/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:klmb1j$4f8$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
<snip>
> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:klmb1j$4f8$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> How does that configuration of a monopole with one radial differ from a
>>> dipole?
>
> The true horizontal dipole (electrically symmetric) radiate in one direction
> only. A monopole in all directions.
>> So a half wave wire broken at the center is a monopole with a single
>> radial if it is fed directly with coax?
>
> Yes. The one leg is the radiator and the second is a ground (like a
> satellite chassis).
>> And it is a dipole if it has a balanced feed?
>
> The true dipole is electrically symmetric. The same voltages but in the
> opposite phase.
> Thank this the interference take place and a dipole has the main lobe and
> many side lobes.
> With the monopole no lobes.
>> What if the coax feedline has a quarter wave sleeve, open at the antenna
>> but connected to the coax at the other end?
>> Is it a monopole or a dipole?
>
> "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter to a
> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
> longer distances".
You haven't the slightest clue what a quarter wave sleeve is or what it
does.
> As you know are many version of ground because the soil is not the best.
> The sleeve, the braid of the coax and so on are only the better ground.
> Dipole must be electrically symmetric.
> If one leg is connected to the any version of ground such "dipole" radiate
> as monopole.
You truely are an idiot.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 30, 2013, 12:11:17 PM4/30/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "tom" <news...@taring.org> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:ltCdnZafQce2pOLM...@iphouse.net...
>> On 4/29/2013 10:20 PM, tom wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2013 3:50 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
>>>>> Assuming the monopole is 1/4 wave long, and has a 1/4 wave long radial.
>>>>> The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
>>>>
>>>> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>>>
>>> So what would happen if I connected my transmitter, which has a 50 ohm
>>> {ostensibly) output with the hot lead of the coax connected to the
>>> "radial" instead of the "monopole" and similarly with the braid?
>>>
>>> Think long about this.
>>>
>>
>> Just to clearly understand where you are on how this really works.
>
> I am not sure if I understand you.
You don't understand anything.
>
> "tom" <news...@taring.org> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:ltCdnZafQce2pOLM...@iphouse.net...
>> On 4/29/2013 10:20 PM, tom wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2013 3:50 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
>>>>> Assuming the monopole is 1/4 wave long, and has a 1/4 wave long radial.
>>>>> The radial is in line with the monopole. Everything is ungrounded.
>>>>
>>>> The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>>>
>>> So what would happen if I connected my transmitter, which has a 50 ohm
>>> {ostensibly) output with the hot lead of the coax connected to the
>>> "radial" instead of the "monopole" and similarly with the braid?
>>>
>>> Think long about this.
>>>
>>
>> Just to clearly understand where you are on how this really works.
>
> I am not sure if I understand you.
> If you have the mechanically symmetric dipole than one leg with the coax
> braid works as the radiator and the second as the ground.
> If you change the terminals than your radial will be the radiator.
> Do not you have any possibility to check which leg is active?
--
Jim Pennino
Wayne
Apr 30, 2013, 1:02:23 PM4/30/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
# satellite chassis).
So with direct coax connection, one leg radiates and the other leg is
ground?
Would you be willing to touch the end of the "ground"/"radial" wire while
transmitting?
John S
Apr 30, 2013, 1:07:27 PM4/30/13
to
On 4/13/2013 10:05 PM, Bob wrote:
> I was looking into an artificial ground because I live on a second floor and
> thought it might be useful, especially in support of a necessarily long ground
> connection. I did do a search, but only came up with links related to the MFJ
> offerings which only go to 30MHz. I'm hoping for one that covers 6 meters as
> well. Does anyone here know where I can find plans to construct one?
>
> Thanks & 73,
> Bob KB2ZGN
>
I'm sure plans exist on the Internet, but it's a lot easier to just buy
a bag of it at a nursery. :-)
> I was looking into an artificial ground because I live on a second floor and
> thought it might be useful, especially in support of a necessarily long ground
> connection. I did do a search, but only came up with links related to the MFJ
> offerings which only go to 30MHz. I'm hoping for one that covers 6 meters as
> well. Does anyone here know where I can find plans to construct one?
>
> Thanks & 73,
> Bob KB2ZGN
>
I'm sure plans exist on the Internet, but it's a lot easier to just buy
a bag of it at a nursery. :-)
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 30, 2013, 1:08:29 PM4/30/13
to
U�ytkownik <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:fu655a-...@mail.specsol.com...
> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter
>> to a
>> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit
>> for
>> longer distances".
>
> This has nothing to do with the question asked.
>
>
>>
>> "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter
>> to a
>> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit
>> for
>> longer distances".
>
> This has nothing to do with the question asked.
>
>> As you know are many version of ground because the soil is not the best.
>> The sleeve, the braid of the coax and so on are only the better ground.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
>> Dipole must be electrically symmetric.
>> If one leg is connected to the any version of ground such "dipole"
>> radiate
>> as monopole.
>
> More babble.
>
> You truely are an idiot.
You know only the EM waves. They "were made" by Heaviside in 1884, years
>> The sleeve, the braid of the coax and so on are only the better ground.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
>> Dipole must be electrically symmetric.
>> If one leg is connected to the any version of ground such "dipole"
>> radiate
>> as monopole.
>
> More babble.
>
> You truely are an idiot.
before Marconi and Tesla.
Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell
Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission of
electric
waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".
Electric waves are radiated. EM is an induction.
About ground Marconi wrote:
"The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
questioned,
but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy exists
where the instruments are not connected to earth.
By "connected to earth" I do not necessarily mean an ordinary metallic
connection as used for ordinary wire telegraphs.
The earth wire may have a condenser in series with it, or it may be
connected
to what is really equivalent, a capacity area placed close to the surface
of the ground (Fig. 4).
It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does not
prevent the passage of high frequency oscillations, and therefore in these
cases
the earth is for all practical purposes connected to the antennae."
Was Marconi an idiot?
S*
Rob
Apr 30, 2013, 1:20:22 PM4/30/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does not
>
> prevent the passage of high frequency oscillations, and therefore in these
> cases
>
> the earth is for all practical purposes connected to the antennae."
It is also well known that a conductor, when long enough, presents
> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does not
>
> prevent the passage of high frequency oscillations, and therefore in these
> cases
>
> the earth is for all practical purposes connected to the antennae."
itself as an inductor and does not allow passage of high frequency
oscillations.
Is Szczepan an idiot?
Szczepan Bialek
Apr 30, 2013, 1:26:25 PM4/30/13
to
news:klot8q$7ir$1...@dont-email.me...
transmitting).
Are the voltages equal in the both legs?
If you are really interested in electric waves look at Maconi Nobel lecture:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
S*
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517f7c10$0$1217$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517f7c10$0$1217$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>>
>> # The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>>
>>>
>>> How does that configuration of a monopole with one radial differ from a
>>> dipole?
>
> The true horizontal dipole (electrically symmetric) radiate in one
> direction
> only. A monopole in all directions.
>>
>> So a half wave wire broken at the center is a monopole with a single
>> radial if it is fed directly with coax?
>
> # Yes. The one leg is the radiator and the second is a ground (like a
> # satellite chassis).
>
> So with direct coax connection, one leg radiates and the other leg is
> ground?
Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> How does that configuration of a monopole with one radial differ from a
>>> dipole?
>
> The true horizontal dipole (electrically symmetric) radiate in one
> direction
> only. A monopole in all directions.
>>
>> So a half wave wire broken at the center is a monopole with a single
>> radial if it is fed directly with coax?
>
> # Yes. The one leg is the radiator and the second is a ground (like a
> # satellite chassis).
>
> So with direct coax connection, one leg radiates and the other leg is
> ground?
>
> Would you be willing to touch the end of the "ground"/"radial" wire while
> transmitting?
The electron density changes periodically in the both legs (while
> Would you be willing to touch the end of the "ground"/"radial" wire while
> transmitting?
transmitting).
Are the voltages equal in the both legs?
If you are really interested in electric waves look at Maconi Nobel lecture:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
S*
Ralph Mowery
Apr 30, 2013, 1:26:35 PM4/30/13
to
"Rob" <nom...@example.com> wrote in message
news:slrnknvvam...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does
>> not
>>
> Is Szczepan an idiot?
>> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does
>> not
>>
I think the ones answering him are...
Dave Platt
Apr 30, 2013, 1:59:07 PM4/30/13
to
well-drained cactus mix is the best choice if you're going to put up a
"plumber's delight" J-pole such as the "Copper Cactus".
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Wayne
Apr 30, 2013, 3:41:23 PM4/30/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:klot8q$7ir$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517f7c10$0$1217$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>>
>> # The radial connected with the shield of the coax is the ground.
>>
>>>
>>> How does that configuration of a monopole with one radial differ from a
>>> dipole?
>
> The true horizontal dipole (electrically symmetric) radiate in one
> direction
> only. A monopole in all directions.
>>
>> So a half wave wire broken at the center is a monopole with a single
>> radial if it is fed directly with coax?
>
> # Yes. The one leg is the radiator and the second is a ground (like a
> # satellite chassis).
>
> So with direct coax connection, one leg radiates and the other leg is
> ground?
>
> Would you be willing to touch the end of the "ground"/"radial" wire while
> transmitting?
# The electron density changes periodically in the both legs (while
> Would you be willing to touch the end of the "ground"/"radial" wire while
> transmitting?
# transmitting).
# Are the voltages equal in the both legs?
But the question was: if the half of the antenna connected to the coax is
ground, would you be willing to touch the end of that half while RF power is
supplied to the center conductor connected half of the antenna?
That would be a good way of verifying your theory.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 30, 2013, 8:17:03 PM4/30/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> U?ytkownik <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
> Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.
> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
> There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell
More babble.
> Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission of
> electric
> waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".
Over 100 years old; EM radiation is now well understood by just about
everyone but you.
> Electric waves are radiated. EM is an induction.
Yet more babble.
> About ground Marconi wrote:
>
> "The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
> questioned,
>
> but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy exists
>
> where the instruments are not connected to earth.
>
> By "connected to earth" I do not necessarily mean an ordinary metallic
>
> connection as used for ordinary wire telegraphs.
>
> The earth wire may have a condenser in series with it, or it may be
> connected
>
> to what is really equivalent, a capacity area placed close to the surface
>
> of the ground (Fig. 4).
>
> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does not
>
> prevent the passage of high frequency oscillations, and therefore in these
> cases
>
> the earth is for all practical purposes connected to the antennae."
>
> Was Marconi an idiot?
No, Marconi was simply proven wrong about the ground requirement many
decades ago.
The majority of antennas that exist today were invented after Marconi died.
You, however, are a babbling idiot.
--
Jim Pennino
>
> U?ytkownik <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
> news:fu655a-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter
>>> to a
>>> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit
>>> for
>>> longer distances".
>>
>> This has nothing to do with the question asked.
>
>
>>
>>> As you know are many version of ground because the soil is not the best.
>>> The sleeve, the braid of the coax and so on are only the better ground.
>>
>> Utter nonsense.
>>
>>> Dipole must be electrically symmetric.
>>> If one leg is connected to the any version of ground such "dipole"
>>> radiate
>>> as monopole.
>>
>> More babble.
>>
>> You truely are an idiot.
>
> You know only the EM waves. They "were made" by Heaviside in 1884, years
> before Marconi and Tesla.
Babble.
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter
>>> to a
>>> wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit
>>> for
>>> longer distances".
>>
>> This has nothing to do with the question asked.
>
>
>>
>>> As you know are many version of ground because the soil is not the best.
>>> The sleeve, the braid of the coax and so on are only the better ground.
>>
>> Utter nonsense.
>>
>>> Dipole must be electrically symmetric.
>>> If one leg is connected to the any version of ground such "dipole"
>>> radiate
>>> as monopole.
>>
>> More babble.
>>
>> You truely are an idiot.
>
> You know only the EM waves. They "were made" by Heaviside in 1884, years
> before Marconi and Tesla.
> Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.
> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
> There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell
> Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission of
> electric
> waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".
everyone but you.
> Electric waves are radiated. EM is an induction.
> About ground Marconi wrote:
>
> "The necessity or utility of the earth connection has been sometimes
> questioned,
>
> but in my opinion no practical system of wireless telegraphy exists
>
> where the instruments are not connected to earth.
>
> By "connected to earth" I do not necessarily mean an ordinary metallic
>
> connection as used for ordinary wire telegraphs.
>
> The earth wire may have a condenser in series with it, or it may be
> connected
>
> to what is really equivalent, a capacity area placed close to the surface
>
> of the ground (Fig. 4).
>
> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does not
>
> prevent the passage of high frequency oscillations, and therefore in these
> cases
>
> the earth is for all practical purposes connected to the antennae."
>
> Was Marconi an idiot?
decades ago.
The majority of antennas that exist today were invented after Marconi died.
You, however, are a babbling idiot.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 30, 2013, 8:17:47 PM4/30/13
to
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 30, 2013, 8:22:00 PM4/30/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
<snip>
> The electron density changes periodically in the both legs (while
> transmitting).
> Are the voltages equal in the both legs?
If you actually knew anything about antennas you would realize that is
an immensely stupid question.
> If you are really interested in electric waves look at Maconi Nobel lecture:
> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
Most of the knowledge of electromagnetic waves, not "electric waves", was
obtained after 1909.
Your are not only and idiot, you are an idiot 100 years out of date.
--
Jim Pennino
<snip>
> The electron density changes periodically in the both legs (while
> transmitting).
> Are the voltages equal in the both legs?
an immensely stupid question.
> If you are really interested in electric waves look at Maconi Nobel lecture:
> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
obtained after 1909.
Your are not only and idiot, you are an idiot 100 years out of date.
--
Jim Pennino
tom
Apr 30, 2013, 9:44:47 PM4/30/13
to
center conductor?
tom
K0TAR
tom
Apr 30, 2013, 9:56:45 PM4/30/13
to
On 4/30/2013 12:08 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>
> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does not
>
> prevent the passage of high frequency oscillations, and therefore in these
> cases
>
> the earth is for all practical purposes connected to the antennae."
>
> Was Marconi an idiot?
>
> S*
>
>
If you pick the text you posted here yes, he was an idiot by your
>
> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does not
>
> prevent the passage of high frequency oscillations, and therefore in these
> cases
>
> the earth is for all practical purposes connected to the antennae."
>
> Was Marconi an idiot?
>
> S*
>
>
definition. He wasn't really an idiot, unlike you.
Because the earth is NOT "in these cases the earth is for all practical
purposes connected to the antennae" for well over 99% of all the
antennas in use today. Because it doesn't need to be.
tom
K0TAR
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 30, 2013, 10:10:38 PM4/30/13
to
or does he just stand there, looking at the sky with with his mouth open,
until someone notices the gurgling sounds and takes him inside?
--
Jim Pennino
Szczepan Bialek
May 1, 2013, 3:32:15 AM5/1/13
to
news:bi365a-...@mail.specsol.com...
And what about you? Ralph wrote:
"I think the ones answering him are..."
S*
"I think the ones answering him are..."
Szczepan Bialek
May 1, 2013, 3:36:22 AM5/1/13
to
news:vg365a-...@mail.specsol.com...
> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You know only the EM waves. They "were made" by Heaviside in 1884, years
>> before Marconi and Tesla.
>
> Babble.
>
>> Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.
>> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
>> There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell
>
> More babble.
>
>> Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission
>> of
>> electric
>> waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".
>
> Over 100 years old; EM radiation is now well understood by just about
> everyone but you.
EM by Maxwell and Heaviside are much older.
>>
>>
>> You know only the EM waves. They "were made" by Heaviside in 1884, years
>> before Marconi and Tesla.
>
> Babble.
>
>> Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.
>> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
>> There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell
>
> More babble.
>
>> Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission
>> of
>> electric
>> waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".
>
> Over 100 years old; EM radiation is now well understood by just about
> everyone but you.
>
>> Electric waves are radiated. EM is an induction.
S*
>> Electric waves are radiated. EM is an induction.
Szczepan Bialek
May 1, 2013, 4:40:23 AM5/1/13
to
news:klp6iv$1sq$1...@dont-email.me...
"H. Horizontal, unbalanced antennas, such as a long wire or random wire,
need an RF Ground wire that should be 10-15% longer than the antenna wire
itself. This is often called a counterpoise. The RF ground wire in this case
can be laid out in many ways, just so long as it does not cross over itself
to form a loop. Indoors, such wires are often run under carpets or along
walls, out of windows, or anywhere else convenient. This wire will often
have large RF voltages on it, so it should be kept away from people or
insulated to prevent contact." From:
http://www.sgcworld.com/radialstechnote.html
Your "dipoles" are "horizontal, unbalanced antennas". The radial or
counterpoise "should be kept away from people or insulated to prevent
contact."
The "mechanically symmetric dipole" is the simplest solution.
Do you agree?
S*
>
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517ffec2$0$26707$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
>>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517ffec2$0$26707$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
>>
>> So with direct coax connection, one leg radiates and the other leg is
>> ground?
>
> # Yes.
>>
>> Would you be willing to touch the end of the "ground"/"radial" wire while
>> transmitting?
>
> # The electron density changes periodically in the both legs (while
> # transmitting).
> # Are the voltages equal in the both legs?
>
> But the question was: if the half of the antenna connected to the coax is
> ground, would you be willing to touch the end of that half while RF power
> is supplied to the center conductor connected half of the antenna?
>
> That would be a good way of verifying your theory.
It is not my theory. Somebody wrote:
>> ground?
>
> # Yes.
>>
>> Would you be willing to touch the end of the "ground"/"radial" wire while
>> transmitting?
>
> # The electron density changes periodically in the both legs (while
> # transmitting).
> # Are the voltages equal in the both legs?
>
> But the question was: if the half of the antenna connected to the coax is
> ground, would you be willing to touch the end of that half while RF power
> is supplied to the center conductor connected half of the antenna?
>
> That would be a good way of verifying your theory.
"H. Horizontal, unbalanced antennas, such as a long wire or random wire,
need an RF Ground wire that should be 10-15% longer than the antenna wire
itself. This is often called a counterpoise. The RF ground wire in this case
can be laid out in many ways, just so long as it does not cross over itself
to form a loop. Indoors, such wires are often run under carpets or along
walls, out of windows, or anywhere else convenient. This wire will often
have large RF voltages on it, so it should be kept away from people or
insulated to prevent contact." From:
http://www.sgcworld.com/radialstechnote.html
Your "dipoles" are "horizontal, unbalanced antennas". The radial or
counterpoise "should be kept away from people or insulated to prevent
contact."
The "mechanically symmetric dipole" is the simplest solution.
Do you agree?
S*
>
Szczepan Bialek
May 1, 2013, 4:47:40 AM5/1/13
to
news:-eydncVkCbzB6x3M...@iphouse.net...
You simply do not know that:
"In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of
current without changing its potential." and,
"The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such
as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles may be
spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to
the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the
power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which
serves as the common return path for current from many different components
in the circuit." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
The same was wrote by Marconi.
S*
"In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of
current without changing its potential." and,
"The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such
as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles may be
spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to
the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the
power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which
serves as the common return path for current from many different components
in the circuit." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
The same was wrote by Marconi.
S*
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 1, 2013, 9:53:51 AM5/1/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
> And what about you? Ralph wrote:
> "I think the ones answering him are..."
> S*
So you are proud of the fact that someone thinks answering your babbling
> And what about you? Ralph wrote:
> "I think the ones answering him are..."
> S*
nonsense is a waste of time?
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 1, 2013, 9:56:49 AM5/1/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
everyone but you.
The majority of EM radiation theory was formulated after 1909.
Continuing to quote Maxwell, Heaviside, and Marconi just shows how
obsolete your "knowledge" is.
--
Jim Pennino
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
> news:vg365a-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You know only the EM waves. They "were made" by Heaviside in 1884, years
>>> before Marconi and Tesla.
>>
>> Babble.
>>
>>> Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.
>>> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
>>> There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell
>>
>> More babble.
>>
>>> Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission
>>> of
>>> electric
>>> waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".
>>
>> Over 100 years old; EM radiation is now well understood by just about
>> everyone but you.
>
> EM by Maxwell and Heaviside are much older.
One more time; EM radiation is now well understood by just about
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You know only the EM waves. They "were made" by Heaviside in 1884, years
>>> before Marconi and Tesla.
>>
>> Babble.
>>
>>> Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.
>>> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
>>> There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell
>>
>> More babble.
>>
>>> Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission
>>> of
>>> electric
>>> waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".
>>
>> Over 100 years old; EM radiation is now well understood by just about
>> everyone but you.
>
> EM by Maxwell and Heaviside are much older.
everyone but you.
The majority of EM radiation theory was formulated after 1909.
Continuing to quote Maxwell, Heaviside, and Marconi just shows how
obsolete your "knowledge" is.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 1, 2013, 10:00:59 AM5/1/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "tom" <news...@taring.org> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:-eydncVkCbzB6x3M...@iphouse.net...
>> On 4/30/2013 12:08 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>>
>>> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does
>>> not
>>>
>>> prevent the passage of high frequency oscillations, and therefore in
>>> these
>>> cases
>>>
>>> the earth is for all practical purposes connected to the antennae."
>>>
>>> Was Marconi an idiot?
>>>
>>> S*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you pick the text you posted here yes, he was an idiot by your
>> definition. He wasn't really an idiot, unlike you.
>>
>> Because the earth is NOT "in these cases the earth is for all practical
>> purposes connected to the antennae" for well over 99% of all the antennas
>> in use today. Because it doesn't need to be.
>
> You simply do not know that:
> "In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
> infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of
> current without changing its potential." and,
Irrelevant.
>
> "tom" <news...@taring.org> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:-eydncVkCbzB6x3M...@iphouse.net...
>> On 4/30/2013 12:08 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>>
>>> It is now perfectly well known that a condenser, if large enough, does
>>> not
>>>
>>> prevent the passage of high frequency oscillations, and therefore in
>>> these
>>> cases
>>>
>>> the earth is for all practical purposes connected to the antennae."
>>>
>>> Was Marconi an idiot?
>>>
>>> S*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you pick the text you posted here yes, he was an idiot by your
>> definition. He wasn't really an idiot, unlike you.
>>
>> Because the earth is NOT "in these cases the earth is for all practical
>> purposes connected to the antennae" for well over 99% of all the antennas
>> in use today. Because it doesn't need to be.
>
> You simply do not know that:
> "In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
> infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of
> current without changing its potential." and,
> "The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
> electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such
> as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles may be
> spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to
> the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the
> power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which
> serves as the common return path for current from many different components
> in the circuit." From:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
> The same was wrote by Marconi.
Where is the ground on a WWII era radiosonde?
No chassis, no "ground plane", no ciruit board, only point-to-point
wiring on a non-conductive mounting board and an antenna that is a
piece of wire connected to the plate circuit.
--
Jim Pennino
John S
May 1, 2013, 1:28:01 PM5/1/13
to
On 4/30/2013 12:59 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
>>> I was looking into an artificial ground because I live on a second floor and
>>> thought it might be useful, especially in support of a necessarily long ground
>>> connection. I did do a search, but only came up with links related to the MFJ
>>> offerings which only go to 30MHz. I'm hoping for one that covers 6 meters as
>>> well. Does anyone here know where I can find plans to construct one?
>>>
>>> Thanks & 73,
>>> Bob KB2ZGN
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure plans exist on the Internet, but it's a lot easier to just buy
>> a bag of it at a nursery. :-)
>
> Make sure you select the right variety, of course. A bag of
> well-drained cactus mix is the best choice if you're going to put up a
> "plumber's delight" J-pole such as the "Copper Cactus".
>
>
Good point. But how about the "Wet Dream" antenna which has been known
>>> I was looking into an artificial ground because I live on a second floor and
>>> thought it might be useful, especially in support of a necessarily long ground
>>> connection. I did do a search, but only came up with links related to the MFJ
>>> offerings which only go to 30MHz. I'm hoping for one that covers 6 meters as
>>> well. Does anyone here know where I can find plans to construct one?
>>>
>>> Thanks & 73,
>>> Bob KB2ZGN
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure plans exist on the Internet, but it's a lot easier to just buy
>> a bag of it at a nursery. :-)
>
> Make sure you select the right variety, of course. A bag of
> well-drained cactus mix is the best choice if you're going to put up a
> "plumber's delight" J-pole such as the "Copper Cactus".
>
>
to withstand a hurricane? There must be a trade-off.
Dave Platt
May 1, 2013, 2:38:28 PM5/1/13
to
>>> I'm sure plans exist on the Internet, but it's a lot easier to just buy
>>> a bag of it at a nursery. :-)
>>
>> Make sure you select the right variety, of course. A bag of
>> well-drained cactus mix is the best choice if you're going to put up a
>> "plumber's delight" J-pole such as the "Copper Cactus".
>
>Good point. But how about the "Wet Dream" antenna which has been known
>to withstand a hurricane? There must be a trade-off.
For that type, I think you want to order up a few dumptruck loads of
>>> a bag of it at a nursery. :-)
>>
>> Make sure you select the right variety, of course. A bag of
>> well-drained cactus mix is the best choice if you're going to put up a
>> "plumber's delight" J-pole such as the "Copper Cactus".
>
>Good point. But how about the "Wet Dream" antenna which has been known
>to withstand a hurricane? There must be a trade-off.
adobe or caliche ground :-)
tom
May 3, 2013, 7:49:04 PM5/3/13
to
On 5/1/2013 3:47 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> "tom" <news...@taring.org> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:-eydncVkCbzB6x3M...@iphouse.net...
>>>
>>
> "tom" <news...@taring.org> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:-eydncVkCbzB6x3M...@iphouse.net...
>>>
>>
>> If you pick the text you posted here yes, he was an idiot by your
>> definition. He wasn't really an idiot, unlike you.
>>
>> Because the earth is NOT "in these cases the earth is for all practical
>> purposes connected to the antennae" for well over 99% of all the antennas
>> in use today. Because it doesn't need to be.
>
> You simply do not know that:
> "In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
> infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of
> current without changing its potential." and,
But the "ground" you are referring to in this paragraph is NOT the one
>> definition. He wasn't really an idiot, unlike you.
>>
>> Because the earth is NOT "in these cases the earth is for all practical
>> purposes connected to the antennae" for well over 99% of all the antennas
>> in use today. Because it doesn't need to be.
>
> You simply do not know that:
> "In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
> infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of
> current without changing its potential." and,
you are in the next. One is an essentially infinite sink, and the other
ignores that property entirely.
So you are arguing with yourself here.
>
> "The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
> electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices such
> as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles may be
> spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to
> the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the
> power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board) which
> serves as the common return path for current from many different components
> in the circuit." From:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
>
> The same was wrote by Marconi.
> S*
>
>
K0TAR
Wayne
May 3, 2013, 8:32:03 PM5/3/13
to
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:klp6iv$1sq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:517ffec2$0$26707$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
>>
>> So with direct coax connection, one leg radiates and the other leg is
>> ground?
>
> # Yes.
>>
>> Would you be willing to touch the end of the "ground"/"radial" wire while
>> transmitting?
>
> # The electron density changes periodically in the both legs (while
> # transmitting).
> # Are the voltages equal in the both legs?
>
> But the question was: if the half of the antenna connected to the coax is
> ground, would you be willing to touch the end of that half while RF power
> is supplied to the center conductor connected half of the antenna?
>
> That would be a good way of verifying your theory.
# "H. Horizontal, unbalanced antennas, such as a long wire or random wire,
# need an RF Ground wire that should be 10-15% longer than the antenna wire
# itself. This is often called a counterpoise. The RF ground wire in this
case
# can be laid out in many ways, just so long as it does not cross over
itself
# to form a loop. Indoors, such wires are often run under carpets or along
# walls, out of windows, or anywhere else convenient. This wire will often
# have large RF voltages on it, so it should be kept away from people or
# insulated to prevent contact." From:
# http://www.sgcworld.com/radialstechnote.html
# Your "dipoles" are "horizontal, unbalanced antennas". The radial or
# counterpoise "should be kept away from people or insulated to prevent
# contact."
It appears that your reference above from SGC contradicts your single radial
assertion.
For a half wave antenna broken in the center, you claim that the half
connected to the coax braid is a radial.
If it is a radial, why does it have high voltage at the end, behaving like a
dipole?
vu2nan
May 4, 2013, 1:56:39 AM5/4/13
to
I wonder if I have gone nuts going through this thread!
73,
Nandu.
--
vu2nan
Szczepan Bialek
May 4, 2013, 4:12:45 AM5/4/13
to
news:vsqdnTj5Uo9w0RnM...@iphouse.net...
space.
The air or the space are the "infinite source or sink for charge".
I assume that you know that a conductor gain/loss the charge in the
air/space.
But the conductor must be large enough.
In your "dipole" one radial is enugh but in a big station must be much more.
> On 5/1/2013 3:47 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>
>> You simply do not know that:
>> "In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
>> infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount
>> of
>> current without changing its potential." and,
>
> But the "ground" you are referring to in this paragraph is NOT the one you
> are in the next. One is an essentially infinite sink, and the other
> ignores that property entirely.
>
> So you are arguing with yourself here.
The both paragraph are wrote by the same Author.
>>
>> You simply do not know that:
>> "In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
>> infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount
>> of
>> current without changing its potential." and,
>
> But the "ground" you are referring to in this paragraph is NOT the one you
> are in the next. One is an essentially infinite sink, and the other
> ignores that property entirely.
>
> So you are arguing with yourself here.
>
>>
>> "The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
>> electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices
>> such
>> as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles may be
>> spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection
>> to
>> the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the
>> power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board)
>> which
>> serves as the common return path for current from many different
>> components
>> in the circuit." From:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
The "large conductor, "ground plane" or "radials" are in the air or in the
>>
>> "The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
>> electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices
>> such
>> as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles may be
>> spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection
>> to
>> the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the
>> power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board)
>> which
>> serves as the common return path for current from many different
>> components
>> in the circuit." From:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
space.
The air or the space are the "infinite source or sink for charge".
I assume that you know that a conductor gain/loss the charge in the
air/space.
But the conductor must be large enough.
In your "dipole" one radial is enugh but in a big station must be much more.
Szczepan Bialek
May 4, 2013, 4:34:21 AM5/4/13
to
news:km1knp$qo7$1...@dont-email.me...
ends.
If the one end is in the soil you have the monopooe antenna.
But next Marconi discovered that the radials are better than the soil.
You should understand that 120 radials have lower voltage than one radiator.
Also one radial from your "dipole" connetced in series with the shield has
lower voltage.
Have you posibility to measure the VSWR on the both legs your "dipole"?
S*
>
>
> # It is not my theory. Somebody wrote:
> # "H. Horizontal, unbalanced antennas, such as a long wire or random wire,
> # need an RF Ground wire that should be 10-15% longer than the antenna
> wire
> # itself. This is often called a counterpoise. The RF ground wire in this
> case
> # can be laid out in many ways, just so long as it does not cross over
> itself
> # to form a loop. Indoors, such wires are often run under carpets or along
> # walls, out of windows, or anywhere else convenient. This wire will often
> # have large RF voltages on it, so it should be kept away from people or
> # insulated to prevent contact." From:
> # http://www.sgcworld.com/radialstechnote.html
>
> # Your "dipoles" are "horizontal, unbalanced antennas". The radial or
> # counterpoise "should be kept away from people or insulated to prevent
> # contact."
>
> It appears that your reference above from SGC contradicts your single
> radial assertion.
>
> For a half wave antenna broken in the center, you claim that the half
> connected to the coax braid is a radial.
> If it is a radial, why does it have high voltage at the end, behaving like
> a dipole?
>
> # It is not my theory. Somebody wrote:
> # "H. Horizontal, unbalanced antennas, such as a long wire or random wire,
> # need an RF Ground wire that should be 10-15% longer than the antenna
> wire
> # itself. This is often called a counterpoise. The RF ground wire in this
> case
> # can be laid out in many ways, just so long as it does not cross over
> itself
> # to form a loop. Indoors, such wires are often run under carpets or along
> # walls, out of windows, or anywhere else convenient. This wire will often
> # have large RF voltages on it, so it should be kept away from people or
> # insulated to prevent contact." From:
> # http://www.sgcworld.com/radialstechnote.html
>
> # Your "dipoles" are "horizontal, unbalanced antennas". The radial or
> # counterpoise "should be kept away from people or insulated to prevent
> # contact."
>
> It appears that your reference above from SGC contradicts your single
> radial assertion.
>
> For a half wave antenna broken in the center, you claim that the half
> connected to the coax braid is a radial.
> If it is a radial, why does it have high voltage at the end, behaving like
> a dipole?
""Marconi, who discovered if he attached one terminal of his transmitter to
a
wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
longer distances".
Each transmittel as a source of AC produces the high voltage at the both
a
wire suspended in the air and the other to the Earth, he could transmit for
longer distances".
ends.
If the one end is in the soil you have the monopooe antenna.
But next Marconi discovered that the radials are better than the soil.
You should understand that 120 radials have lower voltage than one radiator.
Also one radial from your "dipole" connetced in series with the shield has
lower voltage.
Have you posibility to measure the VSWR on the both legs your "dipole"?
S*
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 4, 2013, 11:02:01 AM5/4/13
to
Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "tom" <news...@taring.org> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:vsqdnTj5Uo9w0RnM...@iphouse.net...
>> On 5/1/2013 3:47 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>>
>>> You simply do not know that:
>>> "In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
>>> infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount
>>> of
>>> current without changing its potential." and,
>>
>> But the "ground" you are referring to in this paragraph is NOT the one you
>> are in the next. One is an essentially infinite sink, and the other
>> ignores that property entirely.
>>
>> So you are arguing with yourself here.
>
> The both paragraph are wrote by the same Author.
Irrelevant.
>
> "tom" <news...@taring.org> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:vsqdnTj5Uo9w0RnM...@iphouse.net...
>> On 5/1/2013 3:47 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>>
>>> You simply do not know that:
>>> "In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an
>>> infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount
>>> of
>>> current without changing its potential." and,
>>
>> But the "ground" you are referring to in this paragraph is NOT the one you
>> are in the next. One is an essentially infinite sink, and the other
>> ignores that property entirely.
>>
>> So you are arguing with yourself here.
>
> The both paragraph are wrote by the same Author.
You are incapable of understanding that the word "ground" can refer to
several different things.
>>> "The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and
>>> electronics applications that circuits in portable electronic devices
>>> such
>>> as cell phones and media players as well as circuits in vehicles may be
>>> spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection
>>> to
>>> the Earth. This is usually a large conductor attached to one side of the
>>> power supply (such as the "ground plane" on a printed circuit board)
>>> which
>>> serves as the common return path for current from many different
>>> components
>>> in the circuit." From:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
>
> The "large conductor, "ground plane" or "radials" are in the air or in the
> space.
> The air or the space are the "infinite source or sink for charge".
You are incapable of understanding that the word "ground" can refer to
several different things.
> I assume that you know that a conductor gain/loss the charge in the
> air/space.
> But the conductor must be large enough.
> In your "dipole" one radial is enugh but in a big station must be much more.
>>> The same was wrote by Marconi.
were later discoved to be wrong or only apply in limited situations.
--
Jim Pennino
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages