On Sep 12, 1:25*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 11, 11:11 pm, "Hal Rosser" wrote:

This has lead us to the *obsurd present point where a cubic foot size
antenna for top band should have
its reflecter a couple of blocks away and of a size stretching for
several thousand feet instead of a few inches
where if the antenna was a ball of presureized water the close
reflector would prevent the jet of water spreading to the rear.

better, getting better... keep going, this concept has potential to keep me
amused for the weekend with this bad wx. *pressurized water vs 160m size
photons is a good combination!

I have no idea of how a photon affects radiation. I do know that when
a building is being drenched by a jet of water
you do not cover the building with a protective shield or reflector
you put a reflector close to the source.
You have to be the only guy in the country with a 2000 foot diameter
umbrella to keep your hair dry! You were the leader in this ham group
that denied the mathematics of the comparison
of Maxwell and Gauss. Because the rest of the hams on this group could
not handle the transition of the different units involved
or have not studied physics they followed you over the cliff like
lemmings.
All because you were exercising free speech where verification was not
available
I assume you know how to turn on a transmitter but beyond that your
education is a great mystery.
For sure you never received a pass in physics of any sort and debate
with such a person is impossible
I await the day when a ham comes along with sufficient education to
verify or discredit the Maxwell/Gauss
mathematics but I know a ham is not around in the U.S. that can
discredit it.