On 10/15/2014 8:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:25:14 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/14/2014 7:32 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Back to hauling firewood up the hill...

You are doing it wrong. You will find it much easier to haul the
firewood down the hill.

My cardiologist demands that I get more exercise. Schlepping firewood
up about 50 step is quite good a producing the desired effect. That
which doesn't kill me makes me stronger. I could easily install a
cable lift, bucket hoist, or conveyor belt to move the firewood up the
hill with less exertion. However, I won't do that. Other than
occasional bicycling and fast walks, firewood schlepping is my major
form of exercise.

Yes, "that which doesn't kill me". I doubt hauling firewood uphill is
what your doctor would recommend. You should find the time to bicycle
more.

--

Rick

rickman wrote in :

Yes, "that which doesn't kill me". I doubt hauling firewood uphill is
what your doctor would recommend. You should find the time to bicycle
more.


I find that cross country running helps with sciatica, so long as there is no
heavy jarring of my spine. So I have to be careful of that, but the result
proves the old 'use it or lose it' strategy.

"gareth" wrote in message ...

On antennae that are several half-wavelengths long (beverage, Rhombic, etc)
what does the radiative wavefront look like when close to the antennae,
even
though it is presented in the literature as a plane wave further out?

The reason that I ask is the on such longwires, there are parts of the
wire which will be radiating positively, and parts negatively, thereby
suggesting that the outgoing wave, spherical though it might be, has
a +/- modualtion were you to travrse its circumference?

Parts of the wire have negative radiation? Outgoing wave has
circumferential modulation?

OK, I get it now. You aren't being serious.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
He is confusing the E and M fields, which have a sine form but in
orthogonal planes, for 'the radiation', in essence
he doesn't understand the nature of an EM wave.

Once again, Brian, the origination of abuse comes from you, and yet
you don't know enought yourself to discuss the matter, so you do not.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
He is confusing the E and M fields, which have a sine form but in
orthogonal planes, for 'the radiation', in essence

They are not planar, but 3D fields.

he doesn't understand the nature of an EM wave.

Physician, heal thyself.

gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
He is confusing the E and M fields, which have a sine form but in
orthogonal planes, for 'the radiation', in essence

They are not planar, but 3D fields.

QED

he doesn't understand the nature of an EM wave.



--
Jim Pennino