The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed.
 

En el artículo , John S
escribió:

What the hell are you seeking?

Attention.

He's a very sad, demented attention-seeking troll, as evidenced by the
Google archive of his posts dating back to 1997. What's striking about
them is that they haven't changed much in that time.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae,as previously discussed.
 

On 10/22/2014 11:10 AM, gareth wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , rickman writes
On 10/22/2014 11:15 AM, John S wrote:

What the hell are you seeking?

Drama

And, of course, confrontation.

Untrue.

The confrontation is sought only by those who seek to respond
in a tendentious and abusive manner, such as John S and rickman
above.

In what way have I been abusive, Gareth? As for tendentious, it you who
have done so with most all of your original posts. It seems to me that
you are a lost and lonely soul and are seeking some attention. If you
wish to discuss technicalities of ham radio, I'm all for it. Can we
please be gentlemen about it? If not, I will never respond to you again.

The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae,as previously discussed.
 

On 22/10/14 16:15, John S wrote:
On 10/22/2014 10:05 AM, gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...

If 10 watts is delivered to a short antenna, where does it go if it
is not
radiated just as well as 10 watts delivered to a long antenna?

How are you going to deliver that 10 watts? By feeding with 100 Watts?

Oops! Is that part of the problem? You never said matching was involved.
Please get your story straight.

Tell us your requirements. Using real wire? What diameter? What
material? What length? Is feeding the antenna part of the problem?

What the hell are you seeking?


He wants a row, as always. Why else is he hurling abuse and ignoring
helpful posts?

That is what he has always done.

The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae,as previously discussed.
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:36:31 +0100, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ...
Try this ...

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node94.html

This is one of a series of lectures by a prof at Texas Uni.

In fact, if you go right back to the home page of
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching,
this leads to a most excellent revision of the necessary EM theories,
and,
briefly glancing thereto, the post grad stuff even exceeds my current
interest and knowledge.

I'm fairly sure now that this area is where I came across the governing
formula that I alluded to recently in this NG when doing my own
revision previously in 2005, although the URLs and lecture node numbers
have changed since then.

When I get time, I'll browse through the links.

However, back to your original assertion that your theory has short
antennas as being inefficient compared with longer antennas (I'm
assuming you are talking half wave dipoles and such).

If 10 watts is delivered to a short antenna, where does it go if it is
not radiated just as well as 10 watts delivered to a long antenna?

Dissipated as heat?

Probably proportionately more will be lost as heat as a very short
antenna will be a low impedance, therefore current, driven job and I sq*R
losses within the antenna will play their part. Apart from those
additional losses, it should radiate all that is left, ... I think.

The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae,as previously discussed.
 

On 22/10/14 17:42, John S wrote:
On 10/22/2014 11:10 AM, gareth wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , rickman
writes
On 10/22/2014 11:15 AM, John S wrote:

What the hell are you seeking?

Drama

And, of course, confrontation.

Untrue.

The confrontation is sought only by those who seek to respond
in a tendentious and abusive manner, such as John S and rickman
above.

In what way have I been abusive, Gareth? As for tendentious, it you who
have done so with most all of your original posts. It seems to me that
you are a lost and lonely soul and are seeking some attention. If you
wish to discuss technicalities of ham radio, I'm all for it. Can we
please be gentlemen about it? If not, I will never respond to you again.


If you look in the uk.r.a archive going back to 1997 or so, long before
I started posting, you will see he has been like this for decades. The
only changes have been his sock puppets (a long list) and his prime
targets.

The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae,as previously discussed.
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:00:35 -0700, Wayne wrote:

If 10 watts is delivered to a short antenna, where does it go if it is
not radiated just as well as 10 watts delivered to a long antenna?

Shirley it helps to keep the wire warm.



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed.
 

"gareth" wrote in message ...

"Wayne" wrote in message
...

If 10 watts is delivered to a short antenna, where does it go if it is not
radiated just as well as 10 watts delivered to a long antenna?

# How are you going to deliver that 10 watts? By feeding with 100 Watts?

Perhaps 100 watts to the matching system.
But, that's irrelevant to your theory.

The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed.
 

"Steve" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:36:31 +0100, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ...
Try this ...

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node94.html

This is one of a series of lectures by a prof at Texas Uni.

In fact, if you go right back to the home page of
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching,
this leads to a most excellent revision of the necessary EM theories,
and,
briefly glancing thereto, the post grad stuff even exceeds my current
interest and knowledge.

I'm fairly sure now that this area is where I came across the governing
formula that I alluded to recently in this NG when doing my own
revision previously in 2005, although the URLs and lecture node numbers
have changed since then.

When I get time, I'll browse through the links.

However, back to your original assertion that your theory has short
antennas as being inefficient compared with longer antennas (I'm
assuming you are talking half wave dipoles and such).

If 10 watts is delivered to a short antenna, where does it go if it is
not radiated just as well as 10 watts delivered to a long antenna?

Dissipated as heat?

# Probably proportionately more will be lost as heat as a very short
# antenna will be a low impedance, therefore current, driven job and I sq*R
# losses within the antenna will play their part. Apart from those
# additional losses, it should radiate all that is left, ... I think.

But I^2 R losses are not part of the theory Gareth presented.

The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed.
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
Try this ...

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node94.html

This is one of a series of lectures by a prof at Texas Uni.

In fact, if you go right back to the home page of
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching,

You will get a Forbidden error.

The home page is actually at:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/

this leads to a most excellent revision of the necessary EM theories, and,
briefly

Just where has Fitzpatrick revised anything in EM theories?

It all seems to be pretty standard stuff to me.


--
Jim Pennino

The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed.
 

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
Attention.

He's a very sad, demented attention-seeking troll, as evidenced by the
Google archive of his posts dating back to 1997. What's striking about
them is that they haven't changed much in that time.

Yet again, the abuse that you seek to lay at my door originates with you.