wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

The answer is because the radiation resistance is measured in milliohms
and a matching network to match 50 Ohms to milliohms has huge resistive
losses.

Afraid you've just shot yourself in the foot, there, Old Chap, because
the
reason that the apparent radiation resistance is so low is because so
little
is radiated!

And it is not the "apparent radiation resistance " it is the real,
calculable,
and measurably radiation resistance, you gas bag.

Why do you have this compulsion to shout out insults in the manner of a
5-year-old?

There are two major ways in which the power is dissipated. One is radiation,
and the
other is the i2r losses in the metal.

It is easier for us to model things as though they were resistances, even if
they were not.
(By the same token is the BJT modelled as a combination of resistances,
capacitances
and current generators)

So, the power that is dissipated as radiation is modelled as though it is a
resisitance, although
it is not a resistance, but a mechanism by which power is dissipated.

In terms of the resistance model, that so-called radiation resistance
behaves as though it
is a resistance in series with the resistance of the wire, and it matters
not what current you
manage to force into the antenna, as the antenna shortens, and the apparent
radiation
resistance decreases, the i2r losses start to dominate, and therefore the
short antenna
is a poor radiator in not radiating all the power fed to it.

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

The answer is because the radiation resistance is measured in milliohms
and a matching network to match 50 Ohms to milliohms has huge resistive
losses.

Afraid you've just shot yourself in the foot, there, Old Chap, because
the
reason that the apparent radiation resistance is so low is because so
little
is radiated!

And it is not the "apparent radiation resistance " it is the real,
calculable,
and measurably radiation resistance, you gas bag.

Why do you have this compulsion to shout out insults in the manner of a
5-year-old?

Why do you have this compulsion to post utter nonsense, gas bag?

There are two major ways in which the power is dissipated. One is radiation,
and the
other is the i2r losses in the metal.

They are not the "two major ways", they are the only two ways.

It is easier for us to model things as though they were resistances, even if
they were not.

No, it is not; it makes no difference.

(By the same token is the BJT modelled as a combination of resistances,
capacitances
and current generators)

Gas bag babble.

So, the power that is dissipated as radiation is modelled as though it is a
resisitance, although
it is not a resistance, but a mechanism by which power is dissipated.

Nope, the radiation resistance is the result of the model. Once again
you have the cart and horse reversed.

In terms of the resistance model, that so-called radiation resistance
behaves as though it

There is no "resistance model", gas bag.

is a resistance in series with the resistance of the wire, and it matters
not what current you
manage to force into the antenna, as the antenna shortens, and the apparent
radiation
resistance decreases, the i2r losses start to dominate, and therefore the
short antenna
is a poor radiator in not radiating all the power fed to it.

Yet more gas bag babble and poor logic based on a false premise.




--
Jim Pennino

wrote in message
...
Why do you have this compulsion to post utter nonsense, gas bag?

There are two major ways in which the power is dissipated. One is
radiation,
and the
other is the i2r losses in the metal.

They are not the "two major ways", they are the only two ways.

It is easier for us to model things as though they were resistances, even
if
they were not.

No, it is not; it makes no difference.

(By the same token is the BJT modelled as a combination of resistances,
capacitances
and current generators)

Gas bag babble.

So, the power that is dissipated as radiation is modelled as though it is
a
resisitance, although
it is not a resistance, but a mechanism by which power is dissipated.

Nope, the radiation resistance is the result of the model. Once again
you have the cart and horse reversed.

In terms of the resistance model, that so-called radiation resistance
behaves as though it

There is no "resistance model", gas bag.

is a resistance in series with the resistance of the wire, and it matters
not what current you
manage to force into the antenna, as the antenna shortens, and the
apparent
radiation
resistance decreases, the i2r losses start to dominate, and therefore the
short antenna
is a poor radiator in not radiating all the power fed to it.

Yet more gas bag babble and poor logic based on a false premise.




--
Jim Pennino

wrote in message
...

There are two major ways in which the power is dissipated. One is
radiation,
and the
other is the i2r losses in the metal.

They are not the "two major ways", they are the only two ways.

There are also the dielectric and permeability losses associated
with the creation and collapse of the near fields.


Interesting that in Yankland you prefer to be known as Hams, because
it is now apparetn that you cannot educate pork.

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

There are two major ways in which the power is dissipated. One is
radiation,
and the
other is the i2r losses in the metal.

They are not the "two major ways", they are the only two ways.

There are also the dielectric and permeability losses associated
with the creation and collapse of the near fields.

For dielectric antennas which you have never shown any interest in
gas bagging about and your stated reason why it exists is yet more
hot air nonsense.

Interesting that in Yankland you prefer to be known as Hams, because
it is now apparetn that you cannot educate pork.

Interesting that you are such a gas bag full of so much hot air.

Do the titled invite you to their old mansions in the winter to save
on heating costs?


--
Jim Pennino

wrote in message
...
For dielectric antennas which you have never shown any interest in
gas bagging about and your stated reason why it exists is yet more
hot air nonsense.
Interesting that you are such a gas bag full of so much hot air.
Do the titled invite you to their old mansions in the winter to save
on heating costs?

Grow up, child.

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
For dielectric antennas which you have never shown any interest in
gas bagging about and your stated reason why it exists is yet more
hot air nonsense.
Interesting that you are such a gas bag full of so much hot air.
Do the titled invite you to their old mansions in the winter to save
on heating costs?

Grow up, child.

**** off, gas bag.

Perhaps it is a language issue.

Bugger off, Colonel Blimp.



--
Jim Pennino