"John S" wrote in message
...
So, it appears that doubling the length of a short antenna captures about
3.6 times the signal.

And, therefore, by the reciprocity characteristic, the short antenna is
an inefficient radiator?

On 11/6/2014 11:33 AM, gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
So, it appears that doubling the length of a short antenna captures about
3.6 times the signal.

And, therefore, by the reciprocity characteristic, the short antenna is
an inefficient radiator?

I will answer your question if you can tell me the efficiency of an
isotropic radiator.

"John S" wrote in message
...
On 11/6/2014 11:33 AM, gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
So, it appears that doubling the length of a short antenna captures
about
3.6 times the signal.

And, therefore, by the reciprocity characteristic, the short antenna is
an inefficient radiator?

I will answer your question if you can tell me the efficiency of an
isotropic radiator.

As for all religion, an isotropic radiator is make-believe, and like all
religions, you can make up whatever you choose to be your story.

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"John S" wrote in message
...
So, it appears that doubling the length of a short antenna captures about
3.6 times the signal.

And, therefore, by the reciprocity characteristic, the short antenna is
an inefficient radiator.

So, can I expect an apology from all the Yanks who badmouthed me
in order to try to hide their own ignorance on the matter?

On 7/11/2014 9:31 AM, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
"John S" wrote in message
...
So, it appears that doubling the length of a short antenna captures about
3.6 times the signal.

And, therefore, by the reciprocity characteristic, the short antenna is
an inefficient radiator.

So, can I expect an apology from all the Yanks who badmouthed me
in order to try to hide their own ignorance on the matter?



doubtful
you are no matter other mistakes a foolish troll

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:47:36 +1000, atec77 wrote:

On 7/11/2014 9:31 AM, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
"John S" wrote in message
...
So, it appears that doubling the length of a short antenna captures
about 3.6 times the signal.

And, therefore, by the reciprocity characteristic, the short antenna
is an inefficient radiator.

So, can I expect an apology from all the Yanks who badmouthed me in
order to try to hide their own ignorance on the matter?



doubtful
you are no matter other mistakes a foolish troll

He's a deeply unpleasant, deliberately disruptive, dunce.

On 11/6/2014 11:33 AM, gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
So, it appears that doubling the length of a short antenna captures about
3.6 times the signal.

And, therefore, by the reciprocity characteristic, the short antenna is
an inefficient radiator?

No, not at all. If the kind of reciprocity to which you refer were true,
then the receiving antenna would capture ALL the power radiated. That
obviously cannot be, so I think your idea of reciprocity may be a bit
flawed.

"John S" wrote in message
...
On 11/6/2014 11:33 AM, gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
So, it appears that doubling the length of a short antenna captures
about
3.6 times the signal.

And, therefore, by the reciprocity characteristic, the short antenna is
an inefficient radiator?

No, not at all. If the kind of reciprocity to which you refer were true,
then the receiving antenna would capture ALL the power radiated.

Non-sequitur

On 07/11/2014 12:03, John S wrote:
On 11/6/2014 11:33 AM, gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
So, it appears that doubling the length of a short antenna captures
about
3.6 times the signal.

And, therefore, by the reciprocity characteristic, the short antenna is
an inefficient radiator?

No, not at all. If the kind of reciprocity to which you refer were true,
then the receiving antenna would capture ALL the power radiated. That
obviously cannot be, so I think your idea of reciprocity may be a bit
flawed.


His whole grasp of antenna theory is flawed.

He was trying to (indirectly) argue the other day via his his
interpretation of Maxwell's Equations you could generate an EM wave
by waving a magnet about. When corrected, he introduced another
variation.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

His whole grasp of antenna theory is flawed.
He was trying to (indirectly) argue the other day via his his
interpretation of Maxwell's Equations you could generate an EM wave
by waving a magnet about. When corrected, he introduced another
variation.

Well, Brian, M3OSN, Old Chum, as was pointed out to you, all of your
posts these days are personal attacks aimed at one or another.

Why do you behave like that?

Certainly, as I corrected myself, if you wave a magnet about fast enough,
say, 1000,000,000 times per second, you will certainly generate an EM wave
and no-one has corrected me on that point because that point is true.