On 3 mar, 09:27, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:34:12 -0800 (PST), Wimpie
wrote:

http://www.conformity.com/past/0102reflections.html
This will result in complete different coupling to conductors present
in the reactive field zone. When using reciprocity, this will also
affect the coupling from noise current in the conductors towards the
antenna.

Reciprocity does not appear in the text at your link and the concept
you are offering appears to be an invention that is unsupported. Let's
stick with unraveling one thing at a time.

So, working with your link's assertions give me a simple quantified
indicator of a reactive field.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hello Richard,

As I assume you understand complex calculus, that link (
http://www.conformity.com/past/0102reflections.html ) was just to help
you to figure out field orientation and strength versus distance for
the magnetic and electrical case.

If you still believe in the 2*D^2/lambda far field formula for
electrically small antennas, I doubt whether it is useful to continue.

Best regards,


Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 02:37:34 -0800 (PST), Wimpie
wrote:

So, working with your link's assertions give me a simple quantified
indicator of a reactive field.


As I assume you understand complex calculus, that link (
http://www.conformity.com/past/0102reflections.html ) was just to help
you to figure out field orientation and strength versus distance for
the magnetic and electrical case.

OK, so you cannot present a simple quantified indicator of a reactive
field from your own source.

It is quite apparent without going into math (I thought that appeals
to professionalism and academics like complex calculus were verboten
here) and I see it quite plainly ILLUSTRATED in Figure 3.

However, if you cannot vouchsafe for this source and agree to what it
represents, you are right, there is no basis for discussion.

If you still believe in the 2*D^2/lambda far field formula for
electrically small antennas, I doubt whether it is useful to continue.

I wish you wouldn't interpret beliefs and simple stick to what I've
written.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC