Art Unwin wrote:

...
I don't see how that could happen except when a charge is released it
produces a
lesser resistance route by ironizing of the medium travelled either in
the initial case
or of a resultant discharge travelling thu ozone.

Regards,
JS
Interesting
Regards
Art


Well, I AM one which can picture, theoretically, the antenna as a
"transformer"; and, the antenna taking the signal from the feedline and
"properly interfacing"/matching/transforming-its'-characteristics to the
ether (actually, the ether looks like a "spherical turn" of
superconductor which envelopes the antenna, as someone, either
intentionally or unintentionally, mentioned in an earlier post in
another thread ...)

But, as some gurus have pointed out, REAL PROOF for this is lacking ...

However, very ancient material incorporated the ether into theories of
those times. Then, Einstein, in error, dismissed the ether
totally--then he reneged and changed "luminous ether" to "gravitational
ether." It would seem the "luminous ether" would be fine, if you only
dealt with photons and/or "waves of photons." "Gravitational ether"
would allow for much, much more ... in that one point is a LOT to
contemplate ...

It seems to me, that most, past, authors/experimenters/scholars having
been "fooled once" and changing from the ethers existence to its'
non-existence, would NOT take a chance on being "fooled again"--they
began to "ignore" the ether ...

End-point being, there are loads of equations and formulas laying about
which craftily ignore the ether ... indeed, in my younger years it was
not uncommon to find physicists totally ignorant of Einsteins acceptance
of the gravitational ether (indeed, my own education was along these
lines, only later readings on Einstein brought forth this error.)
"They" would state that Einstein denied the ether, and one would have to
go to great lengths to convince them different, if at all! ... go figure.

It is still quite common to find hams will have "NO ETHER!"

And, the point of all that? We shall, often, need to agree to disagree ...

Regards,
JS