Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote:
snip Yes, I could also start with Maxwell's equations and solve it all myself. I didn't ask for a complete analysis of an antenna, I asked for the way that the effective height of a given antenna is determined. And I gave you several links that tell you exactly that. I'm sorry it didn't boil down to a trivial equation. -- Jim Pennino |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"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. No, that point is utterly, completely, and absolutely false and goes once again to show you have no clue as to the difference between an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field. -- Jim Pennino |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"gareth" wrote in message
... "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. I think your arms would start to ache quite quickly. -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.co.uk |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Antenna & Tuner on 160M Question | Antenna | |||
160m antenna | Antenna | |||
Why did this work (160m antenna)? | Antenna | |||
Outbacker ML-130 160m antenna question | Antenna | |||
question about 160m Isotron Antenna | Antenna |