Re: [Vo]:Still working on antenna
In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Fri, 6 Sep 2019 03:17:16 + (UTC): Hi Frank, You may also find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_wave_propagation of some use. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Still working on antenna
This one works great and has remote control: https://smile.amazon.com/Vansky-Outdoor-Motorized-Rotation-Amplified/dp/B071V7SV6P/ Hard to beat for $35.99 :)
[Vo]:Re: Still working on antenna
thanks mixnet. I neve thought of that. -Original Message- From: Frank Znidarsic To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2019 11:17 pm Subject: Still working on antenna I have been working on my HD TV antenna design for a while now. I learned several things. My orginal asssumption was that only line of sight reception was possible in the UHF band. That is not the case. Currently UHF transmitters blast out a lot of power near the horrizon. This signal may be refracted of reflected from nearby mountans. Reception at 30 miles away may be obtained from a reflected signal. Short interloods of no signal occur that may last up to 30 seconds as this reflected signal is reflected in such a mannor that it phases out. The reflected signal may be very strong +27 SNR and still briefly blink out on a sunny day. Reflected signals come is steady and best on cloudy days. Over the horrizon reception may also be possible through defraction from up to 50 miles away. This signal tends to come in strong under sunny conditions and my dissapear for hours under the inclement conditions. When you lose it, it not comming back until the postion of the sun or the weather pattern changes. Ghosts are filtered out by the digiatal system. It my be possble to get a clear reflected signal where as with the old analog system the picture would be loaded with ghosts. The frindge siganl comes in vertacally polarized. UHF TV antennas are desigend to be mounted in the horizontally polarized postion with a rotating mechanism. I have found that frindge reception comes in vertically polarized. I dont know why this is. Any ideas? I have built my own director and replaced the one that came with the amplified antenna. It has 6 5.5 inchel long elements separated by 4.2 inches. I have found that this arrangement works best with the repacked TV signals. There is no longer any need to receive channels on the upper end of the band and the director can be tuned to respond to the lower end of the band. That gives an extra 3 db. Some phase rotation my be possible with reflected signels. One 4 inch element near the amplifier horizontally mounted tends to compenate for the phase rotation. With this that signal does not blink out as often. The binking out may be associated with a rotation in the angle of polarization. I dont have the equipent to test for this. I have been trying to understand the effect of photons on the antenn's design. My megahertz meter relationship states the photons will be absorbed at a length of .1 inches. I dont quite understand where this enters into the picture. My antenna's director elements are about .1 inches thick. This is where this work crosses over with LENR. An understanding of the path of the quantum transtion my lead to a better understanding of both systems. Maybe I will make another director with elements that are .1 inches thick. This is about the thickness of bycycle spoke. Anyway, I got 15 channels in the valley CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and the CW. I could not get PBS but I purchesed a RUKU stick. It gets PBS news, NOVA, and on U-tube the PBS nightly business report. That all of the major stuff for free. I got it to work without sticking my credit card numbers into it. I am not sure how I did this. I assumed that the higher the antenna the better. My girlfried lives on the top of a mountain. Her antenna does work better higher. I put her's in the attic. I have a clear view of the horizon in my down in the valley location. I have found that an antenna mounted one meter about the ground works best. High up in a tree, 30 feet up, I recieived nothing. I dont understand this. Any ideas? The affect of the quantuzation of light on an UHF antenns still baffels me a bit. I which I could tune for it. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:Still working on antenna
In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Fri, 6 Sep 2019 03:17:16 + (UTC): Hi Frank, [snip] Since I know next to nothing about radio, take these comments with lots of salt. :) 1) If some signals are horizontally polarized, and some vertically, then perhaps you could try creating an antenna that has both vertical and horizontal elements? 2) Another option maybe to use loops instead of rods? (thus potentially catering for any type of polarization, including "shifting"?) 3) If you use loops, try loops where the circumference is equal to the wavelength. >I have been working on my HD TV antenna design for a while now. I learned >several things. >My orginal asssumption was that only line of sight reception was possible in >the UHF band. That is not the case. Currently UHF transmitters blast out a >lot of power near the horrizon. This signal may be refracted of reflected >from nearby mountans. Reception at 30 miles away may be obtained from a >reflected signal. Short interloods of no signal occur that may last up to 30 >seconds as this reflected signal is reflected in such a mannor that it phases >out. The reflected signal may be very strong +27 SNR and still briefly blink >out on a sunny day. Reflected signals come is steady and best on cloudy days. >Over the horrizon reception may also be possible through defraction from up to >50 miles away. This signal tends to come in strong under sunny conditions and >my dissapear for hours under the inclement conditions. When you lose it, it >not comming back until the postion of the sun or the weather pattern changes. > >Ghosts are filtered out by the digiatal system. It my be possble to get a >clear reflected signal where as with the old analog system the picture would >be loaded with ghosts. >The frindge siganl comes in vertacally polarized. UHF TV antennas are >desigend to be mounted in the horizontally polarized postion with a rotating >mechanism. I have found that frindge reception comes in vertically polarized. > I dont know why this is. Any ideas? >I have built my own director and replaced the one that came with the amplified >antenna. It has 6 5.5 inchel long elements separated by 4.2 inches. I have >found that this arrangement works best with the repacked TV signals. There is >no longer any need to receive channels on the upper end of the band and the >director can be tuned to respond to the lower end of the band. That gives an >extra 3 db. >Some phase rotation my be possible with reflected signels. One 4 inch element >near the amplifier horizontally mounted tends to compenate for the phase >rotation. With this that signal does not blink out as often. The binking out >may be associated with a rotation in the angle of polarization. I dont have >the equipent to test for this. >I have been trying to understand the effect of photons on the antenn's design. > My megahertz meter relationship states the photons will be absorbed at a >length of .1 inches. I dont quite understand where this enters into the >picture. My antenna's director elements are about .1 inches thick. This is >where this work crosses over with LENR. An understanding of the path of the >quantum transtion my lead to a better understanding of both systems. Maybe I >will make another director with elements that are .1 inches thick. This is >about the thickness of bycycle spoke. >Anyway, I got 15 channels in the valley CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and the CW. I >could not get PBS but I purchesed a RUKU stick. It gets PBS news, NOVA, and >on U-tube the PBS nightly business report. That all of the major stuff for >free. I got it to work without sticking my credit card numbers into it. I am >not sure how I did this. >I assumed that the higher the antenna the better. My girlfried lives on the >top of a mountain. Her antenna does work better higher. I put her's in the >attic. I have a clear view of the horizon in my down in the valley location. >I have found that an antenna mounted one meter about the ground works best. >High up in a tree, 30 feet up, I recieived nothing. I dont understand this. >Any ideas? >The affect of the quantuzation of light on an UHF antenns still baffels me a >bit. I which I could tune for it. >Frank Znidarsic Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
[Vo]:Superior Proton conductor - cheap as dirt?
When its properties were first discovered - graphene was supposed to be almost as cheap as the coal from which it can be made - but that was blind optimism. Now we hear of two types of micas found in common dirt (muscovite and vermiculite) which can be processed into atomically-thin crystals of mica by simply mechanical exfoliation and ion exchange. This material is claimed to be superior to graphene as a proton conductor. The discovery could open the door for large performance boosts and lower costs in ultracaps, batteries, fuel cells as well as LENR and/or a hybrid of any of these devices. Or, once again it could be hype. But since it is a natural mineral, we should know soon what to expect fairly soon. Typically in LENR there seems to be a direct relationship between excess heat and hydrogen loading, which itself is related to proton conductivity. Monolayers of 2D graphene are highly permeable to protons but less so at high temperature and zero in bulk layers but most importantly - graphene has not been produced at an acceptable price – despite a decade of claims that it can be, unless Tesla Maxwell have made that breakthrough (as has been reported). 2D graphene is in the hundreds of dollars per gram range but needs to be 100 times cheaper for ultracaps to replace lithium ion. Here is the paper from the UK/China where the authors show that few-layer micas become excellent proton conductors when native cations are ion-exchanged for protons. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.04667 “Atomically-thin micas as proton conducting membranes” by L. Mogg et al. The Elon-nation can almost envision that he and the Chinese are already building a facility to produce this new material. Or else – we have another case of overhyped stories in science journalism. There are already a dozen of so headlines on this, with more to come.
