On 3/3/2011 3:21 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:17:40 -0600, John -
wrote:

So from twice to infinity. Still not a quantity. You seem to have the
same problem for which you berate others.

2 (twice) is not a number? The antenna most frequently discussed is a
40th wave or 2 meters across. These are two more numbers (40th and
2). Twice that yields to more numbers (20th and 4).

Infinity is not a number.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You didn't say twice. You said "twice - at least". So what number is
that, Dick? I was taught that the phrase represented a range, not a
number. All you did was put a lower bound on a number you don't know.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:14:54 -0600, John - KD5YI
wrote:

All you did was put a lower bound on a number you don't know.

However, the magnetic antenna is not immune from the reactive fields
of noise emitters that are very much larger than any loop discussed
here.

Choose a "loop discussed here," and you have a number (1, 1.6, 2, and
4). Double (at least) that number, for that loop, and you have a new
number for the noise emitter (2, 3.2, 4, and 8). If you want to more
than double the original number (1, 1.6, 2, and 4), there are probably
practical examples of noise emitters for those numbers too.

The lower bound works as a practical matter but is not exclusive of
other practical, larger emitters. One common example would be the
standard 80M dipole which would give you a number of 40, but that is
not the upper bound.

So, having said double (2, 3.2, 4, and 8) at least (which allows up to
40 which is more than twice any previous number) and there being
larger numbers that satisfy the observation, the larger numbers become
an issue of practicality, not number. There are Rhombics (certainly
impractical for many) that have dimensions of 320 meters:
http://www.pa6z.nl/PROJECTS/ANTENNAS...y_rhombic.html

I suppose now the point to argue is "Is 40 (or 320) very much larger
than 1?"

For the benefit of Wimpie and beliefs: "I would believe so, although I
am open to convincing argument that 40 (or 320) is NOT very much
larger than 1."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC