"gareth" wrote in message
...
"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.

If the short antenna is a dipole, then the two reflections will be
considerably out of
phase, resulting in vector cancellation, which will also contribute to
reduced
efficiency of radiation.

On 22/10/2014 19:09, gareth wrote:

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.

How might you modify that statement to deal with a situation where the
"short antenna" is a quarterwave GP, and the long antenna is a
three-quarterwave GP?

"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?

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/

"gareth" wrote in message
...

I despair that those who are motivated to shout out childish remarks
continue to do so, even in the face of an informative post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same here. Some shows are incomprehensible.

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

This might help decode British idioms:
http://www.translatebritish.com
http://www.effingpot.com/slang.shtml
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/index.htm

Oops... Gotta answer the blower.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558