His question was what do you think of the clip?
You don't have to actually watch it to give your opinion, Jos. This is
the internet, after all. In fact it's better and more common to say that
you didn't watch it, because you are certain it's scientific crap.
Mine is (and I actually watched that piece of crap) is that virtually
everything the guy is saying is wrong. Ever notice how HOT an antenna gets
when transmitting? I mean our local TV station does ONE MEGAWATT erp into
a few aluminum rods on the top of a tower. Should be melting it down,
right? It all just goes downhill from there.
In Tesla's time it was main topic. The efficiency of an antenna was the
diameter of the wire dependent. The thinner is better.
But too thin was melting. There were the such lamps.
Now everybody know how to do "local TV station".
If he can't sell the spray-on antennas he can always pitch CO2 as the
cause of climate change. I think there's big money in that.
At the end of antenna the field electron emission take place. The surface
condition is extremally important:
""In the early years of the 21st century there has been renewed interest in
vacuum tubes, this time with the electron emitter formed on a flat silicon
substrate, as in integrated circuit technology. This subject is now called
vacuum nanoelectronics. The most common design uses a cold cathode in the
form of a large-area field electron source (for example a field emitter
array). With these devices, electrons are field-emitted from a large number
of closely spaced individual emission sites."
S*
