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

On 10/22/2014 2:13 PM, gareth wrote:
"No A1A required" wrote in message
...
On 22/10/2014 19:05, gareth wrote:
"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.

How can the truth be 'abuse'?

Grow up, Not-Ham Hull, G7KUJ

Do you guys not get that this is the sort of conversation he actually
seeks? When you continue to respond to him, you give him what he seeks
and so he continues to post.

--

Rick

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

On 22/10/2014 20:54, rickman wrote:
On 10/22/2014 2:13 PM, gareth wrote:
"No A1A required" wrote in message
...
On 22/10/2014 19:05, gareth wrote:
"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.

How can the truth be 'abuse'?

Grow up, Not-Ham Hull, G7KUJ

Do you guys not get that this is the sort of conversation he actually
seeks? When you continue to respond to him, you give him what he seeks
and so he continues to post.


Yes, we are fully aware of his mental situation. Sometimes, to speed up
the legal side to a custodial sentence, it is necessary to engage with
him. Worth it in the long term.

--
Collecting Bitcoins for my Pension :)
Please send BTC to 1kZKQMvVPce11u7xG1KbArtrAenuxdZue
I thank you!

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

"No A1A required" wrote in message
...
On 22/10/2014 20:54, rickman wrote:
Do you guys not get that this is the sort of conversation he actually
seeks? When you continue to respond to him, you give him what he seeks
and so he continues to post.
Yes, we are fully aware of his mental situation. Sometimes, to speed up
the legal side to a custodial sentence, it is necessary to engage with
him. Worth it in the long term.

A couple of childish individuals who seek to justify their bad behaviour
by claiming that I seek it?

Far from it, I seek only technical excellence as I had done for many years.

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

"Wayne" wrote:
"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.

Actually no. The loss resistance tends to be dwarfed by the radiation
resistance, so losses in the antenna are not the problem.

The problem is matching. A small antenna has a narrow BW so you tend to
need a matching system. That is where the losses will be, plus in any
feeder.

Of course, if you only need a narrow BW and can arrange a low loss feeder
plus load the pa correctly, then pa is happy, low feeder loss, the RF gets
to the antenna.

The antenna RrRL so antenna loss is low.

RF has only one place left to go, to be radiated.




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.
 

Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:29:29 -0000
wrote:

Just where has Fitzpatrick revised anything in EM theories?

I think the OP meant 'revision' as in material used to revise for an
exam or test. He didn't mean that the theory was changed.

It is a UK vs US English thing I find with a little research. No one
this side of the pond uses the third definition.

It would also help if the original OP didn't write like he was being
payed by the word.


revise

1. to amend or alter

2. to alter something already written or printed, in order to make
corrections, improve, or update

3. British. to review (previously studied materials) in preparation
for an examination.



--
Jim Pennino

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

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
k...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:29:29 -0000
wrote:

Just where has Fitzpatrick revised anything in EM theories?

I think the OP meant 'revision' as in material used to revise for an
exam or test. He didn't mean that the theory was changed.

Yes, the URL was different from my 2005 printout

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

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
k...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:29:29 -0000
wrote:

Just where has Fitzpatrick revised anything in EM theories?

I think the OP meant 'revision' as in material used to revise for an
exam or test. He didn't mean that the theory was changed.

Oops, yes. 33 years after studying to that level and not using that theory
in theinterim.

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

In message ,
writes
Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:29:29 -0000
wrote:

Just where has Fitzpatrick revised anything in EM theories?

I think the OP meant 'revision' as in material used to revise for an
exam or test. He didn't mean that the theory was changed.

It is a UK vs US English thing I find with a little research. No one
this side of the pond uses the third definition.

It would also help if the original OP didn't write like he was being
payed by the word.


revise

1. to amend or alter

2. to alter something already written or printed, in order to make
corrections, improve, or update

3. British. to review (previously studied materials) in preparation
for an examination.

I'm surprised that the #3 "revise" - literally meaning "to re-see", ie
"to look at again" - is peculiar to British English. Is this one for
alt.english.usage and /or alt.usage.english?




--
Ian

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

On 22/10/2014 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.

Welcome to the club.
I disagreed with him and so have been labelled as abusive.
Each time he comments that I have been abusive I request that he posts a
link to the post where I abused him. Oddly he has never managed to do so
on any single occasion.

In reality he has hurled abuse at me for being a warmongering baby
killer after spuriously deciding that I was in the army (I posted that I
had used military comms, I had when liaising between RAF and mountain
rescue I am a qualified mountain leader and ex-rescue).

Funnily enough he could come up with no evidence that I was ever in the
army either. (I wasn't by the way but I was in uniform in the cubs in
the 70s - we never actually went to war in the cubs but I did make a
pointy stick once).

You can independently check google if you wish, it can be quite
enlightening.

Andy

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

"Wymsey" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:17:38 +0100, gareth wrote:

I didn't engage with them. I posted what I hoped to me a URL to useful
material and they responded with infantile oubursts.

If you ignore them all will be well and all manner of things will be well.

It is important that real radio amateurs stand against the Childish
Broadcasters (CBers) for the good of the future of amateur / ham radio.

That there are a large number of such abusive individuals over in Yankland
who subscribe to this NG must be of greater concern to the world of amateur
radio.

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

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Wymsey" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:17:38 +0100, gareth wrote:

I didn't engage with them. I posted what I hoped to me a URL to useful
material and they responded with infantile oubursts.

If you ignore them all will be well and all manner of things will be
well.

It is important that real radio amateurs stand against the Childish
Broadcasters (CBers) for the good of the future of amateur / ham radio.

That there are a large number of such abusive individuals over in Yankland
who subscribe to this NG must be of greater concern to the world of
amateur radio.

And, of this morning, also from Britland, chipping in with personal attacks
out-of-the-blue, yet with no technical content.

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

"gareth" wrote in news:m28rqd$mds$1@dont-
email.me:

You need to learn that those who disagre with you are not being abusive
not are they a problem of any sort.


So do you.

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

rickman wrote in :

Do you guys not get that this is the sort of conversation he actually
seeks? When you continue to respond to him, you give him what he seeks
and so he continues to post.



I do now. I asked directly if he really wants to grow old and bitter and die
that way. He does. Well, forewarened is forearmed. Though why this has to
infest Usenet so insiduously, so vigorously, I don't know. Maybe that new 2-
year prsison sentence on trolling really is going to be useful, after all
there is no existing equivalent to the 'retraining order' applying to the
internet, so far as I know. If this crap had been happening in the street,
the coppers would have cleared it up years ago.

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

"gareth" wrote in
:

So far, no-one has discussed what is NOT my theory, but established
physics.


In thread after thrad after thread, many people have done exactly that, yet
you refuse to see it, and posy yet another thread insisting on having
discovered somethign new.

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
On 22/10/2014 19:09, gareth wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...
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,
Some will be radiated, but in a short antenna, much less than with a
long antenna. That which is not radiated will reflect, or bounce off the
end and arrive back at the feed point.


Incorrect, all the power that is not lost as heat will be radiated, power
is not reflected at the end and bounced off to arrive back at the feed
point. Look at the different current distribution on a short dipole
compared to a 1/2 wave dipole.

Where do you think that the standing wave pattern on a half wave comes from,
then, for you need a reflected wave to create such a pattern?

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

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
"gareth" wrote in news:m28rqd$mds$1@dont-
email.me:

You need to learn that those who disagre with you are not being abusive
not are they a problem of any sort.

So do you.

I take exceptions to rude personal remarks, but never to technical
discussion
which is what I am after.

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

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
.. .
I do now. I asked directly if he really wants to grow old and bitter and
die
that way. He does.

Well, it is you who is originating bitterness, and not I.

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

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
That is 'normal' for him.

Untrue.

Sometimes he will post a non-abusive post of his
victim and totally misrepresent its content.

Untrue.

He fabricates abuse/insults
against himself as a justification for his own tirades of abuse.

Untrue. Perhaps you are confused by your own remarks about sheep,
methylated spirit, special brew, Asperger's Syndrome and lavatory cleaning,
topping it all with how easy it was to wind up some people, like shooting
rats in a barrel?

He also
fabricates stories about people

Untrue

for example I have never been dismissed,
left a company on bad terms, or even after a short period of employment-
as
he keeps claiming.

Untrue, that information was provided by Stan White G4EGH (Remember? Your
bosom pal whose wife babysat your children until you turned on him as you
turn on all others?) who decribed you
as being in floods of tears down the phone to him when you were terminated.


Nor do I have a brother who is a milkman, or one who has
ever been a milkman.

But your behaviour and language is as one from the working class and
not as one from the degree-educated minority.

Those two show the span of his obsessions.

I've never been obsessed by you; however, I have consistently responded
defensively
to your obsession with me, as evidenced by this and other non-technical
contributions
that you have maed to this thread.

His vendetta against me started

Incorrect. I have never had a vendetta against you, but I have consistently
sought an
apology and retraction from you that my wife is a sheep in the bed next to
me.

after I corrected him on a number of
technical matters,

Untrue. You have never corrected me on anything. True, you have disagreed,
but
that is not the same thing, and I have taken you to task over the personal
remarks
that you make when disagreeing.

I think the first was logs and the dB

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong in that. In electrical engineering,
the dB
is a unit-free expression of a power ratio.

and of course
there was DSP and his Big K nonsense.

There was no nonsense there, because all the texts, textbooks and URLs to
which I referred said that samplling was a simple multiplication of the
incoming
waveform by the Dirac Delta function, but without there being any factor to
deal
with the obvious anomaly that such a multiplication could only result in
infinitely
high samples. Later on, when working at a DSP company in Bath (picoChip, as
was)
I came across some training material which resolved that anomaly and which
satisfied ny curiosity. (For those interested, the extra factor which must
be included
is a Delta Funcion multiplied by the sampling interval, but that important
factor is missing
from several books on the subject. I suspect that none of the authors,
despite the great
advances they make in the application of DSP don't understand the anomaly,
and skip
over it quickly, probably cribbing off each other's texts)

When you subsequently claimed to have told me of that and were solicited for
the message id
or URL, you went strangely quiet on the matter.

He got even more riled

Untrue, I don't get riled, but you certainly do by this wall of text that
you are seeking
to discredit me.

Perhaps you have revealed more about your own character than you intended,
by
indicating your wish that we should become riled by yor goading?

when he tried
to play the degree card, suggesting only those with a degree should have a
Full Licence.

Sense of humour failure, there, I think, OM?

I'm not quite sure where that would leave his cronies,

Unlike you, with your apprentice in potty-mouthism, I have no cronies. My
opinions are my own. Had you not noticed that I chastised one of those whom
you say are my cronies for mouthing off infantile remarks in your style?

who
couldn't muster a degree between them.

You know nothing about them, for one has a degree in physics, another
a mature student's OU degree.

However, he didn't like being out
bid by someone with two degrees

Completely untrue. Your snobbish posturing about your two of everything,
degrees,
patios, and cars, to name just a few, makes you a source of fun. May I refer
you
to your comment above, "who couldn't muster a degree between them. "?

and his attempt at goading blew up in his
face.

One thing that I have never done in 20 years' of Usenet use is to goad
others,
as do you on a daily basis.

You can verify this in the archive

Untrue. There is no verification possible. HOWEVER, if you review Reay's
posts,
both in this NG and in uk.net.news.config over only the past 24 hours, you
can
see who it is that goads in extremis.

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

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
"gareth" wrote in
:

So far, no-one has discussed what is NOT my theory, but established
physics.

In thread after thrad after thread, many people have done exactly that,

Very few have done that, and I have consistently replied to those who
conduct
themselves in a mature and civilised manner, but not to those who are
gratuitlously rude
(as you are starting to be)

yet
you refuse to see it, and posy yet another thread insisting on having
discovered somethign new.

Not true. For those who are ignorant as to the truth of what I assert, I
posted
a URL from a learned professor with all the necessary background for them
to teach themselves. There's nothing new in established physics.

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

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
In thread after thrad after thread, many people have done exactly that,
yet
you refuse to see it, and posy yet another thread insisting on having
discovered somethign new.

That is his standard ploy.

Untrue.


It allows him to drag the thread out.

Untrue. May I respectfully point out that in this case it is YOU who is
dragging
this thread out by your usual modus operandi of attempting to turn it into
a slanging match. but all that is happening is that I am playing the role
of the ever-patient kindergarten teacher dealing with your unduly and
disuptive
role as a petulant 5-year-old?

If he
acknowledged that his query had been addressed/theory disproved

Neither has happened, for in the discussion of the possible characteristics
of the
aether (correction to spelling after reading an Admiralty handbook) all
jumped
in with comments about antennae and not about the aether; and in the case of
short antennae, I refer you to the didactic URL at Texas University.


(and he may have to admit being wrong).


I have never had any difficulty in acknowledging when I am wrong, for that
is the
essence of the discussions that I start, which is to arrive at scientific
truth.


Even when, after years, he accepted that the standard approach to sampling
for DSP was valid, he insisted he had simply 'missed' a constant in the
standard formula

Untrue. i didn't miss a constant, but demanded that it be there when it was
not.

and therefore introduced another one to compensate.

I expplained that in my rejoinder to you of a few minutes ago.

The
problem is, the constant he claimed to have missed

Untrue. I didn't miss it because it's not there in the many tests on the
subject.
I said, quite rightly, that it should have been there, and dibbed it "Big
K", the
bigness because of the need to compress from the infinity of the Diracisn
down to
the real world of circuitry.

did not compensate for
the issue he had in mind.

As you never responded in a manner that suggested that you understood what
it was I
had in mind, I think that you are not well-equipped to make such an
assertion.

His 'excuse' merely dug his hole another few
meters down.

Untrue.

Again, all in the uk.r.a archive, as I expect he will deny it.

Untrue. There is nothing in the archive to support what you claim,and I
remind you that
when you claimed to have given me the solution and were challnged for the
URL
or message id, that you shut up llike a clam, as you will do so now.

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

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Nor do I have a brother who is a milkman, or one who has
ever been a milkman.

"Have"? Sophistry. He's dead, isn't he?

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

"gareth" wrote in message
...
But your behaviour and language is as one from the working class and
not as one from the degree-educated minority.

Eh? By "working class" do you mean anyone that works for their living? That
infers your "degree-educated minority" are all unemployed.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

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

"Clod's Conscience" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:49:25 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
If someone has a big nose, I would have thought that shouting "You've
got a big nose!" at them would fairly be classed as 'abuse' (despite
being true).

So if I told Gareth he had a fat arse and a face like a bulldog chewing a
wasp, it would be abuse?

Abusive to bulldogs, maybe. (and wasps)
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

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

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Nor do I have a brother who is a milkman, or one who has
ever been a milkman.

"Have"? Sophistry. He's dead, isn't he?

Brian, is it possible that you still have a chip on your shoulder about
being sent to
a technical school for chippies and blacksmiths, and not to a grammar school
for the intellectually elite, which is why you lash out with personal
remarks in
every post in every NG that you frequent?

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

On 10/22/2014 1:06 PM, gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...

In what way have I been abusive, Gareth?

See below.

It seems to me that you are a lost and lonely soul and are seeking some
attention.

I don't believe that statement is considered abuse.

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

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:33:03 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

"Wayne" wrote:
"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.

Actually no. The loss resistance tends to be dwarfed by the radiation
resistance, so losses in the antenna are not the problem.

I think you're missing the point I was making. That is; as antennas
become shorter and shorter, an ever increasing amount is lost as I^2 R.
In normal antennas you are correct that RR swamps I^2 R but as antennas
get shorter and shorter I^ R becomes a much larger factor as the
intrinsic antenna impedance drops and drops whilst the current rises and
rises.

The problem is matching. A small antenna has a narrow BW so you tend to
need a matching system. That is where the losses will be, plus in any
feeder.

Of course, if you only need a narrow BW and can arrange a low loss
feeder plus load the pa correctly, then pa is happy, low feeder loss,
the RF gets to the antenna.

The antenna RrRL so antenna loss is low.

Yes, matching becomes a serious issue but that is not what we are talking
about.

RF has only one place left to go, to be radiated.

Agreed.

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

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message ,
writes
Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:29:29 -0000
wrote:

Just where has Fitzpatrick revised anything in EM theories?

I think the OP meant 'revision' as in material used to revise for an
exam or test. He didn't mean that the theory was changed.

It is a UK vs US English thing I find with a little research. No one
this side of the pond uses the third definition.

It would also help if the original OP didn't write like he was being
payed by the word.


revise

1. to amend or alter

2. to alter something already written or printed, in order to make
corrections, improve, or update

3. British. to review (previously studied materials) in preparation
for an examination.

I'm surprised that the #3 "revise" - literally meaning "to re-see", ie
"to look at again" - is peculiar to British English. Is this one for
alt.english.usage and /or alt.usage.english?

Alt.what?

Thanks to streaming I've been watching a lot of British TV lately.

Quite often I find I haven't a clue what people are talking about, mostly
when it is just casual conversation between the characters.


--
Jim Pennino

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

Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:36:53 -0000
wrote:

Quite often I find I haven't a clue what people are talking about,
mostly when it is just casual conversation between the characters.

It's that old 2 nations divided by a common language thing again. It
takes time to tune in to the nuances of conversation in different
places.

Well, I have managed to figure out bangers, mushy peas, quid, jumble,
and that going to surgery is just a visit to the doctor and not the
major event it is here.


--
Jim Pennino

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

In message , Brian
Morrison writes
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:36:53 -0000
wrote:

Quite often I find I haven't a clue what people are talking about,
mostly when it is just casual conversation between the characters.

It's that old 2 nations divided by a common language thing again. It
takes time to tune in to the nuances of conversation in different
places.

These days, although I have good hearing, I find it often helps a lot to
have the subtitle (closed caption) text turned on.
--
Ian

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

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

These days, although I have good hearing, I find it often helps a lot to
have the subtitle (closed caption) text turned on.

That's because of the woolly-voiced productions that started
with Jamaica Inn!

(and will continue with Spartacus tonight)

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

In message , gareth
writes
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

These days, although I have good hearing, I find it often helps a lot to
have the subtitle (closed caption) text turned on.

That's because of the woolly-voiced productions that started
with Jamaica Inn!

(and will continue with Spartacus tonight)

Oh, I started having them on long before the infamous Jamaica Inn - but
that was particularly bad.



--
Ian

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

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:02:28 +0000, jimp wrote:

Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:36:53 -0000 wrote:

Quite often I find I haven't a clue what people are talking about,
mostly when it is just casual conversation between the characters.

It's that old 2 nations divided by a common language thing again. It
takes time to tune in to the nuances of conversation in different
places.

Well, I have managed to figure out bangers, mushy peas, quid, jumble,
and that going to surgery is just a visit to the doctor and not the
major event it is here.

I'm off for a fag...

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

On 23/10/2014 09:25, Brian Reay wrote:

That is 'normal' for him. Sometimes he will post a non-abusive post of his
victim and totally misrepresent its content. He fabricates abuse/insults
against himself as a justification for his own tirades of abuse. He also
fabricates stories about people, for example I have never been dismissed,
left a company on bad terms, or even after a short period of employment- as
he keeps claiming. Nor do I have a brother who is a milkman, or one who has
ever been a milkman. Those two show the span of his obsessions.

I was aware of the work related details but milkman? That is a little
odd, was distribution of lactose-based products germane to the conversation?

there was DSP and his Big K nonsense. He got even more riled when he tried
to play the degree card, suggesting only those with a degree should have a
Full Licence. I'm not quite sure where that would leave his cronies, who
couldn't muster a degree between them. However, he didn't like being out
bid by someone with two degrees and his attempt at goading blew up in his
face. You can verify this in the archive, I am sure he will deny it.

Oooooh. I have 3 degrees and one 3/4 complete, do I get extra licences?

Andy

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

In message
, Brian
Reay writes



Nor do I have a brother who is a milkman, or one who has
ever been a milkman.

It's hardly an insult to suggest that your brother's a milkman. However,
it's a somewhat different matter to suggest that your FATHER is THE
milkman.





--
Ian

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

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message
, Brian
Reay writes

Nor do I have a brother who is a milkman, or one who has
ever been a milkman.

It's hardly an insult to suggest that your brother's a milkman. However,
it's a somewhat different matter to suggest that your FATHER is THE
milkman.

Insofar as reay keeps raising this matter out-of-the-blue and with
irrelevance
to the topic under discussion ...

"Methinks that he doth protest too much"

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

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:02:28 +0000, jimp wrote:

going to surgery is just a visit to the doctor and not the major event
it is here.

Going to the surgery is visiting the doctor/practice nurse.

Having surgery is the process of having bits cut, etc. The can happen at
the hospital or, sometimes, at the surgery.

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

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

AndyW wrote in
. com:

was distribution of lactose-based products germane to the conversation?


I have it on (possibly dubious) authority that the Germans love milk.

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

On 10/24/2014 8:48 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
AndyW wrote in
. com:

was distribution of lactose-based products germane to the conversation?


I have it on (possibly dubious) authority that the Germans love milk.


No, there are only two drinks. Coffee and beer. One you drink before
noon, the other, after noon.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

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

On 24/10/14 13:58, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/24/2014 8:48 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
AndyW wrote in
. com:

was distribution of lactose-based products germane to the conversation?


I have it on (possibly dubious) authority that the Germans love milk.


No, there are only two drinks. Coffee and beer. One you drink before
noon, the other, after noon.


Actually, I was surprised how fond some of them were of tea. When I was
work on some joint European projects and often worked with a group of
Germans, they greatly appreciated gifts of Earl Grey and other such
teas. Being a tea drinker myself, mainly Earl Grey but others
occasionally, it was a trivial matter to take a few packets of various
teas for them and to arrange for them to be served when they came here
for meetings etc. They reciprocated with various things, wine, a rather
nice plum based brandy, ... (all declared to my Company, as required of
course). The French and Italians were much the same. The Italians also
liked Shortbread, something I don't care for so had to hunt out to buy.

The Americans (or some of them) had to declare almost any gift over a
fairly modest value.(Following the 'Admiral's pearls incident I
believe.) They also liked tea and also biscuits- Rich Tea and Hob Nobs.
In variably they reciprocated with pens, mugs, and the like. At one
stage I could have opened a china shop and a pen shop. The Fisher Space
pens where most popular, I passed on loads to colleagues who didn't get
to travel. I later regretted that, a stock of pens is an essential tool
for a teacher for forgetful pupils.

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m2dicr$2mo$3@dont-
email.me:

No, there are only two drinks. Coffee and beer. One you drink before
noon, the other, after noon.


Oh the sacrilege. :) You forgot whisky.