On 4/19/2012 2:55 PM, Ian wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 4/19/2012 2:43 PM, Ian wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 4/19/2012 2:07 PM, Ian wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 4/19/2012 12:47 PM, wrote:


Marconi was wrong about antennas having to be grounded to work.

I think that's a good thing. We wouldn't get signals from satellites
otherwise.

Actually, that begs the question "which planet is the real ground"?

John
KD5YI


Reckon we could hang a dipole all the way from the earth to the moon?

No.

What gain would it have and what frequency would it resonate on, I
wonder.

Well, lessee... gain would be the same as any dipole, i.e. about 1.76dBi
not considering resistive losses because you did not specify a conductor
size. Resonant frequency would be ~.372 Hz. This does not include the
"capacitive hats" of the earth and moon.

73, Ian.

Where would "ground" be?

73,
John
John, "ground" is so "last century" along with "dial-up" and "Cathode Ray
Tube in my television".
Forget "ground". Say "planet" instead. Is that better?

73, Ian.

I did already. But, *which* planet?

Oh - sorry about missing that, John.
How about going for any two planets which form a straight line? This is
surely better than relying on just one planet which might develop an
eccentric orbit (which we could name the "S****pan orbit").
Besides which, someone, sometime in the future, might want to hang a long
wire between the planets (but how much would the feeder cost).

Okay - if you prefer only on planet then I suggest Saturn (let's talk halo
aerials) or Jupiter with its jolly red spot (well, you try getting a tube of
cream THAT big).

I suppose the best evidence of using ground / planet is moonbounce - uses
the ground / planet without an aerial at that end of the path.

Okay. But how many planets have bounced from their "ground" a signal?
Does that mean that they are not really there, just an artifact of
telescopes?

73, Ian.

"John S" wrote in message
...


Okay. But how many planets have bounced from their "ground" a signal? Does
that mean that they are not really there, just an artifact of telescopes?

73, Ian.



I'll pass on that one. May I wish you a good evening from the UK (where I'm
hoping we'll have clear skies and I can watch the ISS in a few minutes).

73, Ian.

On 4/19/2012 3:57 PM, Ian wrote:
"John wrote in message
...


Okay. But how many planets have bounced from their "ground" a signal? Does
that mean that they are not really there, just an artifact of telescopes?

73, Ian.



I'll pass on that one. May I wish you a good evening from the UK (where I'm
hoping we'll have clear skies and I can watch the ISS in a few minutes).

73, Ian.

And 73 to you, too, Ian.

Cheers as well.

John

John S wrote:

Okay. But how many planets have bounced from their "ground" a signal?
Does that mean that they are not really there, just an artifact of
telescopes?

Since light is nothing more than very, very high frequency RF, all of them.

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The present general opinion regards the space as "rare plasma" (ions and
electrons).

No, it does not.

So Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?

No.

The phrase "oscillatory flow of electrons" is gibberish and you are an
idiot.

Not me but Stokes:
"The Stokes drift is important for the mass transfer of all kind of
materials and organisms by oscillatory flows."

Here you are the "oscillatory water flow".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif
The " "oscillatory flow of electrons" is in the Dirac electron sea.
Each wave are inherently non symmetric.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The present general opinion regards the space as "rare plasma" (ions and
electrons).

No, it does not.

So Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?

No.

The phrase "oscillatory flow of electrons" is gibberish and you are an
idiot.

Not me but Stokes:
"The Stokes drift is important for the mass transfer of all kind of
materials and organisms by oscillatory flows."

Here you are the "oscillatory water flow".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif
The " "oscillatory flow of electrons" is in the Dirac electron sea.
Each wave are inherently non symmetric.
S*


According to Wikipedia, Stokes Drift applies to wave motion in fluid
dynamics. The article predominantly mentions water. Article makes no mention
of its application to radio signals.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa? w wiadomo?ci
news
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The present general opinion regards the space as "rare plasma" (ions and
electrons).

No, it does not.

So Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?

No.

The phrase "oscillatory flow of electrons" is gibberish and you are an
idiot.

Not me but Stokes:
"The Stokes drift is important for the mass transfer of all kind of
materials and organisms by oscillatory flows."

This has nothing what so ever to do with electromagnetics.

You are a babbling idiot.

Here you are the "oscillatory water flow".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif
The " "oscillatory flow of electrons" is in the Dirac electron sea.
Each wave are inherently non symmetric.
S*

This has nothing what so ever to do with electromagnetics.

You are a babbling idiot.

Ian wrote:
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

napisa? w wiadomo?ci
news
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The present general opinion regards the space as "rare plasma" (ions and
electrons).

No, it does not.

So Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?

No.

The phrase "oscillatory flow of electrons" is gibberish and you are an
idiot.

Not me but Stokes:
"The Stokes drift is important for the mass transfer of all kind of
materials and organisms by oscillatory flows."

Here you are the "oscillatory water flow".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif
The " "oscillatory flow of electrons" is in the Dirac electron sea.
Each wave are inherently non symmetric.
S*


According to Wikipedia, Stokes Drift applies to wave motion in fluid
dynamics. The article predominantly mentions water. Article makes no mention
of its application to radio signals.


That's because there isn't any.

It only applys to fluid dynamics, as in water and gases, not free space.

Once again the babbling little idiot does a web search for a phrase or
word like "wave" and is too blindinly stupid to understand that the word
can have more than one meaning.

I am a little surprised that he hasn't posted something about WAVE actions
in WWII.

wrote in message
...

major snippage

You are a babbling idiot.

I think I see the problem. I phoned my cousin, our Ambassador to Elbonia,
and asked him about the translation of "babbling idiot." He says it's taken
as a compliment. Only the top few of Great Elbonian Thinkers are worthy of
such high regard.

:-)

"Sal"