Short antennae, et al
 

I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

As we all now have at our fingertips undreamed-of computer power than
that existing when LLL first developed their NEC, perhaps the way forward
for those with a genuine technical interest, (not CB-types with
their off-the-shelf rigs) to produce their own piece-wise approximation
software to rival EZ-NEC. (But I doubt that those who fire off abusive
remarks would have such a capability)

Short antennae, et al
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

Unless they are fully conversant with this ...

http://maxwell.ugr.es/innov/visua040...r_nec2prt1.pdf


.... then it is certainly true that they are crying in the wilderness

Short antennae, et al
 

"gareth" Wrote in message:
I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

As we all now have at our fingertips undreamed-of computer power than
that existing when LLL first developed their NEC, perhaps the way forward
for those with a genuine technical interest, (not CB-types with
their off-the-shelf rigs) to produce their own piece-wise approximation
software to rival EZ-NEC. (But I doubt that those who fire off abusive
remarks would have such a capability)




I think it far more likely, big G, that you are trying to maintain
a discussion with someone who has you kill filed, as I imagine
most in this group do by now.
--

Short antennae, et al
 

gareth wrote:
I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

Rambling babble.

As we all now have at our fingertips undreamed-of computer power than
that existing when LLL first developed their NEC, perhaps the way forward
for those with a genuine technical interest, (not CB-types with
their off-the-shelf rigs) to produce their own piece-wise approximation
software to rival EZ-NEC. (But I doubt that those who fire off abusive
remarks would have such a capability)

There is no such thing as EZ-NEC.

NEC does not do "piece-wise approximation".

Increased computer power means nothing more than the ability to solve
complex problems in less time.

The validity of the mathematics used by NEC engines was established a
long time ago.


--
Jim Pennino

Short antennae, et al
 

gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

Unless they are fully conversant with this ...

http://maxwell.ugr.es/innov/visua040...r_nec2prt1.pdf

A document from 1981 describing NEC-2; so what?

The most recent version is NEC-4.

... then it is certainly true that they are crying in the wilderness

Babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Short antennae, et al
 

Turdey. wrote:
"gareth" Wrote in message:
I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

As we all now have at our fingertips undreamed-of computer power than
that existing when LLL first developed their NEC, perhaps the way forward
for those with a genuine technical interest, (not CB-types with
their off-the-shelf rigs) to produce their own piece-wise approximation
software to rival EZ-NEC. (But I doubt that those who fire off abusive
remarks would have such a capability)




I think it far more likely, big G, that you are trying to maintain
a discussion with someone who has you kill filed, as
I imagine
most in this group do by now.


I haven't kill filed him yet -- I'm trying to think of a nice way to
tell him to F--- Off! first!

If he was just ignorant, we could fix things by educating him, but he is
obviously stupid which cannot be fixed.

Irv VE6BP

Short antennae, et al
 

wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

Rambling babble.

QED

Short antennae, et al
 

"Irv Finkleman VE6BP" wrote in message
...
"gareth" Wrote in message:
I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

I haven't kill filed him yet -- I'm trying to think of a nice way to
tell him to F--- Off! first!

If he was just ignorant, we could fix things by educating him, but he is
obviously stupid which cannot be fixed.

Irv VE6BP

QED

Short antennae, et al
 

"Irv Finkleman VE6BP" wrote in message
...

I haven't kill filed him yet -- I'm trying to think of a nice way to
tell him to F--- Off! first!
If he was just ignorant, we could fix things by educating him, but he is
obviously stupid which cannot be fixed.
Irv VE6BP

Having just looked at your entry in QRZ, and noting your interest
in antennae (even though you only talk of CB-style rigs), what is
it about antennae discussion that makes you feel so uncomfortable
that you respond in the manner of a 5-year-old, and not as one
befitting the age suggested by your photograph?

Short antennae, et al
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

This continues to be illustrated tonight. A changing electric
field produces a retarded changing magnetic field, and a changing
magnetic field produces a retarded changing electric field. One
cannot exist without the other, as demonstrated by Maxwell's Equations.

(And this is where the thinking behind the crossed field antenna was wrong,
because the changing electric field produced by the capacitor plates
produced the retarded changing magnetic field at all points in the same
space,
and it was unnecessary to introduced the (short antenna! (qv)) attempts
at producing the changing magnetic field.)

In the balanced transmission line, there are two travelling electromagnetic
waves out of phase with each other. Where some people are confused, and
their confusion gives way to infantile outbursts, is that the superposition
of the
two fields results in nearly total external field nullification resulting in
little, if no, radiation
and little, if no, near fields. However, both of the electromagnetic waves
continue
to exist and are guided by the two wires of the feeder.

In the case of coaxial feeders, the electromagnetic wave exists in the
dielectric.

(Let's not even get round to discussing slot antennae or dielectric
antennae, their
being no conductors in either case! :-) )

Short antennae, et al
 

gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
I get the impression that I am trying to maintain a discussion
with some whose knowledge and understanding is way below the
level at which I am discussing, and that it is their limited grasp
of technical matters that results in their infantile outbursts when
the shaky premises of their (almost religious) beliefs are
threatened.

This continues to be illustrated tonight. A changing electric
field produces a retarded changing magnetic field, and a changing
magnetic field produces a retarded changing electric field. One
cannot exist without the other, as demonstrated by Maxwell's Equations.

By that logic you could simply spin a permanent magnet and generate
an electromagnetic field, but you can't.

(And this is where the thinking behind the crossed field antenna was wrong,
because the changing electric field produced by the capacitor plates
produced the retarded changing magnetic field at all points in the same
space,
and it was unnecessary to introduced the (short antenna! (qv)) attempts
at producing the changing magnetic field.)

In the balanced transmission line, there are two travelling electromagnetic
waves out of phase with each other. Where some people are confused, and
their confusion gives way to infantile outbursts, is that the superposition
of the
two fields results in nearly total external field nullification resulting in
little, if no, radiation
and little, if no, near fields. However, both of the electromagnetic waves
continue
to exist and are guided by the two wires of the feeder.

Wrong.

In the case of coaxial feeders, the electromagnetic wave exists in the
dielectric.

Wrong.

(Let's not even get round to discussing slot antennae or dielectric
antennae, their
being no conductors in either case! :-) )

Wrong.






--
Jim Pennino

Short antennae, et al
 

wrote in message
...

By that logic you could simply spin a permanent magnet and generate
an electromagnetic field, but you can't.


If you spin your permanent magnet at frequencies such that the
associated wavelength is a million metres, or thereabouts, then it
would be such a short antenna that there would not be enough radiation
from it to be detectable, (remeber that short antennae are poor radiators,
qv)

But, if you were to spin it at 1000 revs per sec (60,000 revs per minute)
then it would be a different matter.

How about attaching it to the cold side of a jet engine, and analysing
its radiation with your speccy, OM?

Short antennae, et al
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
By that logic you could simply spin a permanent magnet and generate
an electromagnetic field, but you can't.
If you spin your permanent magnet at frequencies such that the
associated wavelength is a million metres, or thereabouts, then it
would be such a short antenna that there would not be enough radiation
from it to be detectable, (remeber that short antennae are poor radiators,
qv)

But, if you were to spin it at 1000 revs per sec (60,000 revs per minute)
then it would be a different matter.

As I was driving away this morning, I realised that I'd typoed, and then
misled myself about
the possibilty of using a jet engine. Nobody's perfect!

I had meant o say to spin at 1000MHz, or 1,000,000 revs per sec, for the
example.

Apologies.

Short antennae, et al
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
By that logic you could simply spin a permanent magnet and generate
an electromagnetic field, but you can't.
If you spin your permanent magnet at frequencies such that the
associated wavelength is a million metres, or thereabouts, then it
would be such a short antenna that there would not be enough radiation
from it to be detectable, (remeber that short antennae are poor
radiators, qv)

But, if you were to spin it at 1000 revs per sec (60,000 revs per minute)
then it would be a different matter.

As I was driving away this morning, I realised that I'd typoed, and then
misled myself about
the possibilty of using a jet engine. Nobody's perfect!

I had meant o say to spin at 1000MHz, or 1,000,000 revs per sec, for the
example.

For god's sake!!!! or 1,000,000,000 revs per sec!!!!!!!!!

Short antennae, et al
 

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:14:52 +0000, gareth wrote:

"gareth" wrote in message
...

As I was driving away this morning, I realised that I'd typoed, and
then misled myself about the possibilty of using a jet engine. Nobody's
perfect!

I had meant o say to spin at 1000MHz, or 1,000,000 revs per sec, for
the example.

For god's sake!!!! or 1,000,000,000 revs per sec!!!!!!!!!

When you're trying to hold water in a colander, is there really any point
in just plugging one or two holes?

Short antennae, et al
 

On 2014-11-03 16:11:14 +0000, Bernie said:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:14:52 +0000, gareth wrote:

"gareth" wrote in message
...

As I was driving away this morning, I realised that I'd typoed, and
then misled myself about the possibilty of using a jet engine. Nobody's
perfect!

I had meant o say to spin at 1000MHz, or 1,000,000 revs per sec, for
the example.

For god's sake!!!! or 1,000,000,000 revs per sec!!!!!!!!!

When you're trying to hold water in a colander, is there really any point
in just plugging one or two holes?

After all, rotary machines to produce LF power (but not LF em waves!)
were used in the early days of WT, so the rpm x poles must be
reasonably achievable.

--

Percy Picacity

Short antennae, et al
 

gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
By that logic you could simply spin a permanent magnet and generate
an electromagnetic field, but you can't.
If you spin your permanent magnet at frequencies such that the
associated wavelength is a million metres, or thereabouts, then it
would be such a short antenna that there would not be enough radiation
from it to be detectable, (remeber that short antennae are poor
radiators, qv)

But, if you were to spin it at 1000 revs per sec (60,000 revs per minute)
then it would be a different matter.

As I was driving away this morning, I realised that I'd typoed, and then
misled myself about
the possibilty of using a jet engine. Nobody's perfect!

I had meant o say to spin at 1000MHz, or 1,000,000 revs per sec, for the
example.

For god's sake!!!! or 1,000,000,000 revs per sec!!!!!!!!!

All of your posts are babbling nonsense which just show once again you
have no clue that an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic
field are three different things.



--
Jim Pennino