Doesn't putting aluminum foil on your TV's antenna (rabbit ears) help
reception by catching more rays? So in a composite airplane, with the
antenna inside the fuselage, what about putting some foil on it to
catch radio rays better?

Certainly. It also improves the odds of intercepting extraterrestrial
communications traffic.

For best results, you need to cover your entire head with tin foil, too.
This helps reject cosmic radiation, improving your signal-to-noise ratio.

"John Wier" > wrote in message
...
> Doesn't putting aluminum foil on your TV's antenna (rabbit ears) help
> reception by catching more rays? So in a composite airplane, with the
> antenna inside the fuselage, what about putting some foil on it to
> catch radio rays better?

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:22:40 -0700, "Pete Schaefer"
> wrote:

>Certainly. It also improves the odds of intercepting extraterrestrial
>communications traffic.
>
>For best results, you need to cover your entire head with tin foil, too.
>This helps reject cosmic radiation, improving your signal-to-noise ratio.
>
>"John Wier" > wrote in message
...
>> Doesn't putting aluminum foil on your TV's antenna (rabbit ears) help
>> reception by catching more rays? So in a composite airplane, with the
>> antenna inside the fuselage, what about putting some foil on it to
>> catch radio rays better?
>

Now I'm sure there isn't a reader on this site that at one time didn't
try putting foil on their rabbit ears back before we had cable and
satellite tv. And it seemed to help. We were in effect making dish
antenna's of sorts. So we could grab more radio beams if we put some
foil in our aircraft antenna's

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:22:40 -0700, "Pete Schaefer"
> wrote:

>Certainly. It also improves the odds of intercepting extraterrestrial
>communications traffic.
>
>For best results, you need to cover your entire head with tin foil, too.
>This helps reject cosmic radiation, improving your signal-to-noise ratio.
>
>"John Wier" > wrote in message
...
>> Doesn't putting aluminum foil on your TV's antenna (rabbit ears) help
>> reception by catching more rays? So in a composite airplane, with the
>> antenna inside the fuselage, what about putting some foil on it to
>> catch radio rays better?
>

Now I'm sure there isn't a reader on this site that at one time didn't
try putting foil on their rabbit ears back before we had cable and
satellite tv. And it seemed to help. We were in effect making dish
antenna's of sorts. So we could grab more radio beams if we put some
foil in our aircraft antenna's

John Wier wrote:

> Now I'm sure there isn't a reader on this site that at one time didn't
> try putting foil on their rabbit ears back before we had cable and
> satellite tv. And it seemed to help. We were in effect making dish
> antenna's of sorts. So we could grab more radio beams if we put some
> foil in our aircraft antenna's

You put too much foil, its doubling your transmissions... <G>

There is the rule of size in that bigger is always better. I believe
your application fits reception. Our government has applied the rule to
operational budgets...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:01:57 -0400, John Wier > wrote:

>Now I'm sure there isn't a reader on this site that at one time didn't
>try putting foil on their rabbit ears back before we had cable and
>satellite tv. And it seemed to help. We were in effect making dish
>antenna's of sorts. So we could grab more radio beams if we put some
>foil in our aircraft antenna's

I used aluminum foil for a ground plane....

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/ground_plane.JPG

Covered it with wood-grained contact paper.

Ron Wanttaja

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:15:59 -0500, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

>John Wier wrote:
>
> > Now I'm sure there isn't a reader on this site that at one time didn't
>> try putting foil on their rabbit ears back before we had cable and
>> satellite tv. And it seemed to help. We were in effect making dish
>> antenna's of sorts. So we could grab more radio beams if we put some
>> foil in our aircraft antenna's
>
>You put too much foil, its doubling your transmissions... <G>
>
>
Oh! I never thought about transmissions, I was just concerned with
improving reception. Good catch!
I bought one of Bob Archers antenna's from ACS, and it's nothing but
flat aluminum sheet cut to some wierd shape. So we can save that money
by just putting foil on a plain old whip antenna. Is it possible to
have one small antenna for transmissions and another with foil for
receiption? Using a splitter of sorts?

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:15:59 -0500, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

>John Wier wrote:
>
> > Now I'm sure there isn't a reader on this site that at one time didn't
>> try putting foil on their rabbit ears back before we had cable and
>> satellite tv. And it seemed to help. We were in effect making dish
>> antenna's of sorts. So we could grab more radio beams if we put some
>> foil in our aircraft antenna's
>
>You put too much foil, its doubling your transmissions... <G>
>
>There is the rule of size in that bigger is always better. I believe
>your application fits reception. Our government has applied the rule to
>operational budgets...


I'm thinking about using diodes and a splitter for transmitting on one
small antenna and recieving on the big foil one.

John Wier wrote:

> I bought one of Bob Archers antenna's from ACS, and it's nothing but
> flat aluminum sheet cut to some wierd shape. So we can save that money
> by just putting foil on a plain old whip antenna. Is it possible to
> have one small antenna for transmissions and another with foil for
> receiption? Using a splitter of sorts?

Toggle switch? If everybody had Escort II's like Ron and me, that
wouldn't be an issue as they support 2 antennas right out the box...

I've saved all of my gum wrappers since I started chewing. If there a
simple method of joining them together conductively? And is trimming it
as simple as just folding it or should I wack it?

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:08:38 -0500, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

>John Wier wrote:
>
>> I bought one of Bob Archers antenna's from ACS, and it's nothing but
>> flat aluminum sheet cut to some wierd shape. So we can save that money
>> by just putting foil on a plain old whip antenna. Is it possible to
>> have one small antenna for transmissions and another with foil for
>> receiption? Using a splitter of sorts?
>
>Toggle switch? If everybody had Escort II's like Ron and me, that
>wouldn't be an issue as they support 2 antennas right out the box...
>
>I've saved all of my gum wrappers since I started chewing. If there a
>simple method of joining them together conductively? And is trimming it
>as simple as just folding it or should I wack it?

Toggle switch! great idea! Don't bother with those gum wrappers, that
foil is cheap in the grocery store. Heck, I'll send you some if need
be.

John Wier wrote:

> I'm thinking about using diodes and a splitter for transmitting on one
> small antenna and recieving on the big foil one.

Good one, transmitter rhymes with splitter, so that has to work...

Welding machines have those big honk'n ones with large amounts of
aluminum surface. Bigger/better...

If you save the gum, you can chew some copper wire strands into it to make
it conductive. The gum itself is the adhesive. It's thermo-setting, too --
just leave it on your dashboard for a while to warm it up. Joining should be
accomplished with an appropriate crimp tool.


"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
.. .
> I've saved all of my gum wrappers since I started chewing. If there a
> simple method of joining them together conductively? And is trimming it
> as simple as just folding it or should I wack it?

NO RELATION.

Jim



"John Wier" > wrote in message
...

> Doesn't putting aluminum foil on your TV's antenna (rabbit ears) help
> reception by catching more rays? So in a composite airplane, with the
> antenna inside the fuselage, what about putting some foil on it to
> catch radio rays better?

RST Engineering wrote:
>
> NO RELATION.
>
> Jim
>
> "John Wier" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Doesn't putting aluminum foil on your TV's antenna (rabbit ears) help
> > reception by catching more rays? So in a composite airplane, with the
> > antenna inside the fuselage, what about putting some foil on it to
> > catch radio rays better?

My God!

This reminds me of the good old days when this site gave me enough
chuckles and guffaws to keep me warm all day.

Gary Thomas

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:29:04 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>NO RELATION.
>
>Jim
>
there was actually never any doubt Jim :-)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:29:04 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>NO RELATION.
>
>Jim
>

You mean you won't even back me up on my findings? You know it works.

Uhhh, won't the aluminium foil make the whip flutter in flight? This
could put some interesting mudulation on your transmissions... Perhaps
this is a new transmission mode... FCC could assign it J9-AL13 as the
appropriate mode designator for DAMN transmissions (Damped Amplitude
Mode N-rays)

denny
google on Blondlot + N-rays

On 16 Jun 2005 08:51:22 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

>Uhhh, won't the aluminium foil make the whip flutter in flight? This
>could put some interesting mudulation on your transmissions... Perhaps
>this is a new transmission mode... FCC could assign it J9-AL13 as the
>appropriate mode designator for DAMN transmissions (Damped Amplitude
>Mode N-rays)
>
>denny
>google on Blondlot + N-rays

You missed the first posts, the foil is for internal antenna's, inside
the fuselage of a composite plane. So the wind won't be a problem at
all. And another bonus, it will improve a composite plane's primary
radar return to ATC, if that is desired that is.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:29:04 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>NO RELATION.
>
>Jim
>

I can't believe Jim Weir, NO RELATION won't own up to having put foil
on his TV's rabbit ears in the past. Someone with that type of
electrical background I'm sure used this procedure back when we were
watching TV shows in black and white, like "To Tell The Truth". But I
can't help but wonder with our names spelled so similar, that way back
many gerations ago, when there weren't so many of us, that we aren't
somehow connected. It's evident we both inherited the same natural
ability with electrics, antenna's and switches.
Although, I will admitt that walking around in front of my TV's rabbit
ears seemed to work even better than the foil. Haven't quite figured
that one out yet.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:42:46 -0400, John Wier >
wrote:

>I can't believe Jim Weir, NO RELATION won't own up to having put foil
>on his TV's rabbit ears in the past. Someone with that type of
>electrical background I'm sure used this procedure back when we were
>watching TV shows in black and white, like "To Tell The Truth". But I
>can't help but wonder with our names spelled so similar, that way back
>many gerations ago, when there weren't so many of us, that we aren't
>somehow connected. It's evident we both inherited the same natural
>ability with electrics, antenna's and switches.
>Although, I will admitt that walking around in front of my TV's rabbit
>ears seemed to work even better than the foil. Haven't quite figured
>that one out yet.

John, just curious but do you know who Jim Weir is and what he does?

Corky Scott

Corky, I think we've been elegantly trolled.

Jim



"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:42:46 -0400, John Wier >
> wrote:

>>Although, I will admitt that walking around in front of my TV's rabbit
>>ears seemed to work even better than the foil. Haven't quite figured
>>that one out yet.
>
> John, just curious but do you know who Jim Weir is and what he does?
>
> Corky Scott

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:48:42 -0400, Corky Scott
> wrote:

>
>John, just curious but do you know who Jim Weir is and what he does?
>
>Corky Scott

I know who he is, I've read lots of his articles for years. And Bob
Nuckols articles too.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:16:53 -0400, John Wier >
wrote:

>I know who he is, I've read lots of his articles for years. And Bob
>Nuckols articles too.

Ok, well if you've read his posts here at RAH, you should know that he
probably hasn't done **ANYTHING** you used to do in regards
electronics, like putting tin foil on an antenna. More likely he
would have tried to make a better one from scratch, and modify it with
electronic boosters. ;-)

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:16:53 -0400, John Wier >
> wrote:
>
> >I know who he is, I've read lots of his articles for years. And Bob
> >Nuckols articles too.
>
> Ok, well if you've read his posts here at RAH, you should know that he
> probably hasn't done **ANYTHING** you used to do in regards
> electronics, like putting tin foil on an antenna. More likely he
> would have tried to make a better one from scratch, and modify it with
> electronic boosters. ;-)
>
> Corky Scott

I rest my case (BFG)

"John Wier" > wrote in message
...
> . . .But I
> can't help but wonder with our names spelled so similar, that way back
> many gerations ago, when there weren't so many of us, that we aren't
> somehow connected. . .

What do you mean there weren't so many of us???? Everyone here had two
parents, right? And they each had two parents! Why, the way the population
is decreasing, I figger we'll be down to a handful of people in twenty,
twenty-five years or so.

Rich "New math" S.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:59:03 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"John Wier" > wrote in message
...
>> . . .But I
>> can't help but wonder with our names spelled so similar, that way back
>> many gerations ago, when there weren't so many of us, that we aren't
>> somehow connected. . .
>
>What do you mean there weren't so many of us???? Everyone here had two
>parents, right? And they each had two parents! Why, the way the population
>is decreasing, I figger we'll be down to a handful of people in twenty,
>twenty-five years or so.
>
>Rich "New math" S.
>
Back when our ancestors were in caves. World population wasn't to much
then. My ancestors probably saw lightening and thus began pondering
electronics.

Either that or got hit by a bolt, thus permanently altering the neural
DNA codes.

We have been foiled once again.

COLIN LAMB wrote:
> We have been foiled once again.
>
>
I'm going to foil that away for future reference.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:08:57 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:

>COLIN LAMB wrote:
>> We have been foiled once again.
>>
>I'm going to foil that away for future reference.

Where's Al when we need him?

Ron Wanttaja

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:08:57 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:
>
>>COLIN LAMB wrote:
>>> We have been foiled once again.
>>>
>>I'm going to foil that away for future reference.
>
>Where's Al when we need him?

Obviously, he's not giving us his a-tin-shun.


Could it be that the original poster is simply experimenting with
"Wier-d Science"? If it would get Kelly LeBrock into _my_ shower,
I could be tempted.

(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>In article >,
>Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:08:57 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:
>>
>>>COLIN LAMB wrote:
>>>> We have been foiled once again.
>>>>
>>>I'm going to foil that away for future reference.
>>
>>Where's Al when we need him?
>
>Obviously, he's not giving us his a-tin-shun.
>
>Could it be that the original poster is simply experimenting with
>"Wier-d Science"? If it would get Kelly LeBrock into _my_ shower,
>I could be tempted.

That just about wraps this up...

Mark Hickey

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:08:57 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>COLIN LAMB wrote:
>>
>>>We have been foiled once again.
>>>
>>
>>I'm going to foil that away for future reference.
>
>
> Where's Al when we need him?
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Would that be Al U. Minum?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

RST Engineering wrote:
> NO RELATION.
>
> Jim

Ha, ha, ha...

Do you mean as in John and Jim or Al foil and improved TV reception? :-)


Matt