|
Atmosphere
As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation
of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere. Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae, and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of a wavelength? I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question of interest to me, and not a troll. |
Atmosphere
gareth wrote:
As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere. Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae, and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of a wavelength? I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question of interest to me, and not a troll. Assuming your house does not glow in the dark as result of a local source of ionisiing radiation I think it is safe to say that the atmosphere will have a negligible affect on the electrical (as opposed to mechanical) properties of your aerials. -- Roger Hayter |
Atmosphere
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere. Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae, and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of a wavelength? No. It is easily shown by a little analysis that electrically short antennas are "poor radiators" because of their low input impedance and all the losses associated with feeding that low impedance from a real world source. -- Jim Pennino |
Atmosphere
|
Atmosphere
"gareth" wrote in message
... As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere. Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae, and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of a wavelength? I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question of interest to me, and not a troll. Were the chorus of replies to relate to the low radiation resistance, then then it raises the question of WHY is the radiation resistance low? |
Atmosphere
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:58:11 +0000, gareth wrote:
I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question of interest to me, and not a troll. Were the chorus of replies to relate to the low radiation resistance, then then it raises the question of WHY is the radiation resistance low? I don't think that bait will catch many fish, you have already had perfectly sensible answers to this question. You could try a web forum but then they wouldn't allow you to hurl abuse at people who gave you answers you didn't like. |
Atmosphere
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message ... As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere. Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae, and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of a wavelength? I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question of interest to me, and not a troll. Were the chorus of replies to relate to the low radiation resistance, then then it raises the question of WHY is the radiation resistance low? Been explained many times. Refer to any text on electromagetics if you need a refresher. -- Jim Pennino |
Atmosphere
"gareth" wrote in message ... As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere. Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae, and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of a wavelength? I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question of interest to me, and not a troll. ================================================= I doubt if distant conditions affect the origin. Does the archer's bow "know" whether the arrow will be striking the target or landing in the dirt 150 feet beyond? I am only a talented amateur but I think with an antenna, the wavelength is best matched by the antenna aperture. This is not the case with short antennas. What do you think? "Sal" |
Atmosphere
"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
... "gareth" wrote in message ... As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere. Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae, and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of a wavelength? I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question of interest to me, and not a troll. ================================================= I doubt if distant conditions affect the origin. I intended the atmosphere immediately adjacent to the antennae. I am only a talented amateur but I think with an antenna, the wavelength is best matched by the antenna aperture. This is not the case with short antennas. What do you think? The standing wave caused by reflection from the open end of a short antenna will not cover a full quarter cycle, and therefore the radiation must be reduced accordingly. But that fits in with my opinion that the atmosphere / environment/ lumeniferous aether / or whatever needs in some way to be excited or twisted by the EM field of the antenna, hence my suggestion that you quoted above. |
Atmosphere
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message ... "gareth" wrote in message ... As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere. Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae, and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of a wavelength? I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question of interest to me, and not a troll. ================================================= I doubt if distant conditions affect the origin. I intended the atmosphere immediately adjacent to the antennae. I am only a talented amateur but I think with an antenna, the wavelength is best matched by the antenna aperture. This is not the case with short antennas. What do you think? The standing wave caused by reflection from the open end of a short antenna will not cover a full quarter cycle, and therefore the radiation must be reduced accordingly. Nope, and easily shown to be false. But that fits in with my opinion that the atmosphere / environment/ lumeniferous aether / or whatever needs in some way to be excited or twisted by the EM field of the antenna, hence my suggestion that you quoted above. Your opinion was disproved about 100 years ago. -- Jim Pennino |
Atmosphere
"gareth" wrote in message ... The standing wave caused by reflection from the open end of a short antenna will not cover a full quarter cycle, and therefore the radiation must be reduced accordingly. But that fits in with my opinion that the atmosphere / environment/ lumeniferous aether / or whatever needs in some way to be excited or twisted by the EM field of the antenna, hence my suggestion that you quoted above ================================================ Perhaps that is so but it isn't a conclusion I would immediately draw. While it might be an interesting discussion topic, knowing with certainty (one way or the other) would not affect how we work our compatriots near and far on the radio. |
Atmosphere
"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
... While it might be an interesting discussion topic, knowing with certainty (one way or the other) would not affect how we work our compatriots near and far on the radio. The essence of amateur radio, one of the many things that distinguishes it from CB radio, is an insatiable technical curiosity. |
Atmosphere
"gareth" wrote in message ... "Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message ... While it might be an interesting discussion topic, knowing with certainty (one way or the other) would not affect how we work our compatriots near and far on the radio. The essence of amateur radio, one of the many things that distinguishes it from CB radio, is an insatiable technical curiosity. I don't have that .... |
Atmosphere
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
... "gareth" wrote in message ... "Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message ... While it might be an interesting discussion topic, knowing with certainty (one way or the other) would not affect how we work our compatriots near and far on the radio. The essence of amateur radio, one of the many things that distinguishes it from CB radio, is an insatiable technical curiosity. I don't have that .... 10-4 gud buddy :-) |
Atmosphere
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message ... While it might be an interesting discussion topic, knowing with certainty (one way or the other) would not affect how we work our compatriots near and far on the radio. The essence of amateur radio, one of the many things that distinguishes it from CB radio, is an insatiable technical curiosity. Too bad that curiosity doesn't lead to following the URL's posted by many that contain extensive technical information. -- Jim Pennino |
Atmosphere
"gareth" wrote in message ... "Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message ... While it might be an interesting discussion topic, knowing with certainty (one way or the other) would not affect how we work our compatriots near and far on the radio. The essence of amateur radio, one of the many things that distinguishes it from CB radio, is an insatiable technical curiosity. ================================================== II I agree. I have an iPad and I drive my wife crazy when I leap to it whenever there's a question. (I cannot restrain myself.) That's good. If not for the iPad, I'd need to invent another way to drive her crazy. "Sal" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com