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

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!

"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.

"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

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

"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

"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.

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

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

"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.