Re: SSTC As a transmitter.

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "rheidlebaugh by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rheidlebaugh-at-zialink-dot-com>

IN THE START RECIEVERS WERE TUNED RADIO FREQUENCY. THEY HAD A MECHANICAL
PROBLEM. The tuning capacitor was large. Then came the regenerative reciever
which was far superior, but not stable. Then came the hetrodyne reciever
used today. Much less sensitive, but stable. The military now uses tuning
diodes so the TRF reciever is back. The regen reciever has never been
matched for sensitivity and simplisity, but it has a problem it transmits
what it recieves. MUNCE made a TV years past known as the  "gutless wonder"
a fine TV but neighbors didnt like it. If the MUNCE was tuned to Ch-5 so was
the next door neighbor. Like it or not !!!! That is the problem with
regenative circuits. They transmit.
  Robert  H

> From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 07:36:38 -0600
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: SSTC As a transmitter.
> Resent-From: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 07:45:11 -0600
> 
> Original poster: "Jim Lux by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>
> 
> Well, gosh, the effective aperture of a half wavelength wire is
> substantially larger than its geometric physical aperture, for just the
> reasons outlined in the quote from the patent.
> For what it's worth: Ae = .119*lambda^2 for a "short dipole" (Kraus,
> Antennas,2nd ed, 2-20, page 44)
> and 0.13*lambda^2 for a halfwave dipole.
> 
> Running some numbers... 30 MHz (10 meter lambda)... wire 1 cm in diameter,
> 5 meters long: Physical aperture = .05 meters^2 Maximum effective aperture
> is 0.13 * 100 = 13 square meters.
> 
> 
> Bear in mind that the collecting aperture (what determines the received
> output power from the antenna)  is smaller than the effective aperture
> (loss and reradiation).
> 
> 
> 
>>> The best that regeneration can do is modify the input impedance of
>>> the receiver, which might happen to give it a better match to the
>>> antenna.
>> 
>> This is in conflict with the following statement by John Sutton found in
>> 1994 U.S. Patent  No. 5,296,866, "Active Antenna":
>> 
>> "The reason why an antenna with regeneration has greater sensitivity
>> than one without regeneration may be understood in terms of the concept of
>> antenna "effective area."  The first to explain why an antenna may have an
>> effective area larger than its geometric area was Reinhold Rudenberg in
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>