The proof of the pudding?
 

"Wimpie" wrote in message
...
The reason that you don't need to take magnetic dipole radiation into
account in real mechanical systems is because of the radiated power is
very low (low RPM in practical mechanical systems). Friction
(bearings/air, eddy current, etc) is orders of magnitude more then the
"friction" caused by the EM radiation.

Further proof, if any were needed, that a short antenna is a poor radiator.

(Frequencies of mechanical rotation representing wavelengthe of several
miles, against which the length of the magnet is trivial, and why, in the
case
of the superconductor example, there is no measurable decrease in
rotational speed, in the short term, at least.)


(Typos in title line corrected)

The proof of the pudding?
 

gareth wrote:
"Wimpie" wrote in message
...
The reason that you don't need to take magnetic dipole radiation into
account in real mechanical systems is because of the radiated power is
very low (low RPM in practical mechanical systems). Friction
(bearings/air, eddy current, etc) is orders of magnitude more then the
"friction" caused by the EM radiation.

Further proof, if any were needed, that a short antenna is a poor radiator.

(Frequencies of mechanical rotation representing wavelengthe of several
miles, against which the length of the magnet is trivial, and why, in the
case
of the superconductor example, there is no measurable decrease in
rotational speed, in the short term, at least.)


(Typos in title line corrected)

Further proof, if any is needed, that you are an arm waver incapable
of producing any numbers.



--
Jim Pennino

The proof of the pudding?
 

On 11/10/2014 5:12 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Wimpie" wrote in message
...
The reason that you don't need to take magnetic dipole radiation into
account in real mechanical systems is because of the radiated power is
very low (low RPM in practical mechanical systems). Friction
(bearings/air, eddy current, etc) is orders of magnitude more then the
"friction" caused by the EM radiation.

Further proof, if any were needed, that a short antenna is a poor radiator.

(Frequencies of mechanical rotation representing wavelengthe of several
miles, against which the length of the magnet is trivial, and why, in the
case
of the superconductor example, there is no measurable decrease in
rotational speed, in the short term, at least.)


(Typos in title line corrected)

Further proof, if any is needed, that you are an arm waver incapable
of producing any numbers.

And here is the proof of a compulsion to respond to useless posts.

--

Rick

The proof of the pudding?
 

rickman wrote:
On 11/10/2014 5:12 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Wimpie" wrote in message
...
The reason that you don't need to take magnetic dipole radiation into
account in real mechanical systems is because of the radiated power is
very low (low RPM in practical mechanical systems). Friction
(bearings/air, eddy current, etc) is orders of magnitude more then the
"friction" caused by the EM radiation.

Further proof, if any were needed, that a short antenna is a poor radiator.

(Frequencies of mechanical rotation representing wavelengthe of several
miles, against which the length of the magnet is trivial, and why, in the
case
of the superconductor example, there is no measurable decrease in
rotational speed, in the short term, at least.)


(Typos in title line corrected)

Further proof, if any is needed, that you are an arm waver incapable
of producing any numbers.

And here is the proof of a compulsion to respond to useless posts.

Pot - kettle - black


--
Jim Pennino

The proof of the pudding?
 

wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Wimpie" wrote in message
...
The reason that you don't need to take magnetic dipole radiation into
account in real mechanical systems is because of the radiated power is
very low (low RPM in practical mechanical systems). Friction
(bearings/air, eddy current, etc) is orders of magnitude more then the
"friction" caused by the EM radiation.
Further proof, if any were needed, that a short antenna is a poor
radiator.
(Frequencies of mechanical rotation representing wavelengthe of several
miles, against which the length of the magnet is trivial, and why, in the
case
of the superconductor example, there is no measurable decrease in
rotational speed, in the short term, at least.)
(Typos in title line corrected)
Further proof, if any is needed, that you are an arm waver incapable
of producing any numbers.

And your numbers in your various (infantile) rebuttals?

Where are they?

The proof of the pudding?
 

On 11/10/2014 6:08 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 11/10/2014 5:12 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Wimpie" wrote in message
...
The reason that you don't need to take magnetic dipole radiation into
account in real mechanical systems is because of the radiated power is
very low (low RPM in practical mechanical systems). Friction
(bearings/air, eddy current, etc) is orders of magnitude more then the
"friction" caused by the EM radiation.

Further proof, if any were needed, that a short antenna is a poor radiator.

(Frequencies of mechanical rotation representing wavelengthe of several
miles, against which the length of the magnet is trivial, and why, in the
case
of the superconductor example, there is no measurable decrease in
rotational speed, in the short term, at least.)


(Typos in title line corrected)

Further proof, if any is needed, that you are an arm waver incapable
of producing any numbers.

And here is the proof of a compulsion to respond to useless posts.

Pot - kettle - black

So you acknowledge that you have a compulsion to post regarding Gareth?

--

Rick

The proof of the pudding?
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...
So you acknowledge that you have a compulsion to post regarding Gareth?

One thing that is different between you and jimp is that he knows damn
nothing
but you know damn all.

The proof of the pudding?
 

gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
So you acknowledge that you have a compulsion to post regarding Gareth?

One thing that is different between you and jimp is that he knows damn
nothing
but you know damn all.

So how short is a "short antenna"?

What is the metric for "poor performance'?



--
Jim Pennino

The proof of the pudding?
 

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Wimpie" wrote in message
...
The reason that you don't need to take magnetic dipole radiation into
account in real mechanical systems is because of the radiated power is
very low (low RPM in practical mechanical systems). Friction
(bearings/air, eddy current, etc) is orders of magnitude more then the
"friction" caused by the EM radiation.
Further proof, if any were needed, that a short antenna is a poor
radiator.
(Frequencies of mechanical rotation representing wavelengthe of several
miles, against which the length of the magnet is trivial, and why, in the
case
of the superconductor example, there is no measurable decrease in
rotational speed, in the short term, at least.)
(Typos in title line corrected)
Further proof, if any is needed, that you are an arm waver incapable
of producing any numbers.

And your numbers in your various (infantile) rebuttals?

Where are they?

I have made several posts containing lots of numbers which you have yet to
make any comment on.

How short is a "short antenna"?

Wht is the metric for "poor performance"?



--
Jim Pennino

The proof of the pudding?
 

On 11/10/2014 6:08 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 11/10/2014 5:12 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Wimpie" wrote in message
...
The reason that you don't need to take magnetic dipole radiation into
account in real mechanical systems is because of the radiated power is
very low (low RPM in practical mechanical systems). Friction
(bearings/air, eddy current, etc) is orders of magnitude more then the
"friction" caused by the EM radiation.

Further proof, if any were needed, that a short antenna is a poor radiator.

(Frequencies of mechanical rotation representing wavelengthe of several
miles, against which the length of the magnet is trivial, and why, in the
case
of the superconductor example, there is no measurable decrease in
rotational speed, in the short term, at least.)


(Typos in title line corrected)

Further proof, if any is needed, that you are an arm waver incapable
of producing any numbers.

And here is the proof of a compulsion to respond to useless posts.

Pot - kettle - black



You said it - rickman didn't

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

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

The proof of the pudding?
 

wrote in message
...

How short is a "short antenna"?


In order to satisfy your curiosity, curiosity that has been repeated in
several threads, I wonder if an answer might be the manner in
which you seem to want to represent yourself, that of being several
inches short of a half-wave dipole and of being a poor and inefficient
radiator of civil and mature remarks?

The proof of the pudding?
 

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

How short is a "short antenna"?


In order to satisfy your curiosity, curiosity that has been repeated in
several threads, I wonder if an answer might be the manner in
which you seem to want to represent yourself, that of being several
inches short of a half-wave dipole and of being a poor and inefficient
radiator of civil and mature remarks?

How short is a "short antenna"?

What is the metric for "poor perfomance"?



--
Jim Pennino