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

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
You continue to represent yourself as a bloviating gas bag.
What part of real, calculable, and measurable RADIATION RESISTANCE did
you not understand, gas bag?
Have you become so loony you can not understand the difference between
"resistance" and "radiation resistance", gas bag?

Grow up, child.

Bugger off, Colonel Blimp.



--
Jim Pennino

"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 11/4/2014 12:48 PM, gareth wrote:
If short antennae radiate all the power that is fed to them, then why
would
anyone use long antennae, because the first part of such an antenna, the
short
part, would radiate all the power, and then there'd be nothing left for
the
extra bit, making up the rest of the long antenna, to do?

The answer is, of course, because it is more difficult to feed a short
antenna
because of its reactance.

So, whence does this reactance arise?

Simple.

It is the power that has NOT been all radiated by the short antenna
arriving
back at
the feed point with an awkward phase relationship with the incident power.

What happens to that power that has not ALL been radiated when it arrives
back
at the feed point?

Simple.

It passes back into the matching network, which, together with the short
bit, form
the resonant artefact, where much of it disappears as heat in the matching
network
before being fed back to the short antenna to start all over again.

Now, Stephen Thomas Cole, that well-respected font of all technical
knowledge over
in uk.radio.amateur is saying that all you Yanks are a bunch of dopes if
you
do not understand
the above, so take it up with him over there.

# It is so amazing how a simple post of nonsense will make all the
# gullible members of this group dance like puppets on a string.

I've gone QRV on this particular thread.

On 11/4/2014 6:15 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
And it is not the "apparent radiation resistance " it is the real,
calculable,
and measurably radiation resistance, you gas bag.

Lo! And behold! When you calculate it, one of the terms is the ratio
between antenna length and wavelength

Therefore it is not "apparent radiation resistance" as you said, it is
real and calculable as I said, gas bag.

You continue to represent yourself as a 5-year-old.

You continue to represent yourself as a bloviating gas bag.

It is not a real resistance, for, if it were, then the power would be
dissipated as heat
and not as radiation.

What part of real, calculable, and measurable RADIATION RESISTANCE did
you not understand, gas bag?

Have you become so loony you can not understand the difference between
"resistance" and "radiation resistance", gas bag?



Of course - all "resistance", no matter what kind, is the same!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 11/4/2014 7:55 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 11/4/2014 12:48 PM, gareth wrote:
If short antennae radiate all the power that is fed to them, then why
would
anyone use long antennae, because the first part of such an antenna, the
short
part, would radiate all the power, and then there'd be nothing left
for the
extra bit, making up the rest of the long antenna, to do?

The answer is, of course, because it is more difficult to feed a short
antenna
because of its reactance.

So, whence does this reactance arise?

Simple.

It is the power that has NOT been all radiated by the short antenna
arriving
back at
the feed point with an awkward phase relationship with the incident
power.

What happens to that power that has not ALL been radiated when it arrives
back
at the feed point?

Simple.

It passes back into the matching network, which, together with the short
bit, form
the resonant artefact, where much of it disappears as heat in the
matching
network
before being fed back to the short antenna to start all over again.

Now, Stephen Thomas Cole, that well-respected font of all technical
knowledge over
in uk.radio.amateur is saying that all you Yanks are a bunch of dopes
if you
do not understand
the above, so take it up with him over there.

# It is so amazing how a simple post of nonsense will make all the
# gullible members of this group dance like puppets on a string.

I've gone QRV on this particular thread.

"Ready to copy"?

Or do you mean QRT?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ...

On 11/4/2014 7:55 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 11/4/2014 12:48 PM, gareth wrote:
If short antennae radiate all the power that is fed to them, then why
would
anyone use long antennae, because the first part of such an antenna, the
short
part, would radiate all the power, and then there'd be nothing left
for the
extra bit, making up the rest of the long antenna, to do?

The answer is, of course, because it is more difficult to feed a short
antenna
because of its reactance.

So, whence does this reactance arise?

Simple.

It is the power that has NOT been all radiated by the short antenna
arriving
back at
the feed point with an awkward phase relationship with the incident
power.

What happens to that power that has not ALL been radiated when it arrives
back
at the feed point?

Simple.

It passes back into the matching network, which, together with the short
bit, form
the resonant artefact, where much of it disappears as heat in the
matching
network
before being fed back to the short antenna to start all over again.

Now, Stephen Thomas Cole, that well-respected font of all technical
knowledge over
in uk.radio.amateur is saying that all you Yanks are a bunch of dopes
if you
do not understand
the above, so take it up with him over there.

# It is so amazing how a simple post of nonsense will make all the
# gullible members of this group dance like puppets on a string.

I've gone QRV on this particular thread.

# "Ready to copy"?

# Or do you mean QRT?

Sitting here "ready to copy" on an interesting subject, and in the fuller
meaning of QRV, sitting here in the shack sending a string of v's on the bug
to show I'm ready.

"Wayne" wrote in message
...

I've gone QRV on this particular thread.

"There's none so blind as he who will not see"

On 05/11/14 02:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/4/2014 6:15 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
And it is not the "apparent radiation resistance " it is the real,
calculable,
and measurably radiation resistance, you gas bag.

Lo! And behold! When you calculate it, one of the terms is the ratio
between antenna length and wavelength

Therefore it is not "apparent radiation resistance" as you said, it is
real and calculable as I said, gas bag.

You continue to represent yourself as a 5-year-old.

You continue to represent yourself as a bloviating gas bag.

It is not a real resistance, for, if it were, then the power would be
dissipated as heat
and not as radiation.

What part of real, calculable, and measurable RADIATION RESISTANCE did
you not understand, gas bag?

Have you become so loony you can not understand the difference between
"resistance" and "radiation resistance", gas bag?

Of course - all "resistance", no matter what kind, is the same!

Including "resistance to arrest?"


--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk
..
Ubuntu 12.04
Thunderbirds are go.