"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.

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
Perhaps 100 watts to the matching system.
But, that's irrelevant to your theory.

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

"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.

"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.

"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.