Spike wrote:
On 08/03/15 09:33, Jeff wrote:
Spike wrote

I think you are coming at this from the wrong view point.

Perhaps the question that you should be asking is what take-off angles
are required to produce maximum ground wave, and how do you maximize
that for a MF mobile installation.

I'm really after figures for the proportions of the RF power fed to that
antenna, that finish up in whatever 'they' are called (the use of the
well-known word 'waves' seem to upset people despite their having been
used for the specifics I mentioned, for about 100 years).

I'm aware that reconfiguring the set-up might affect these proportions,
but I did refer the original query to a typical /M (mobile) set-up of a
short rod antenna not connected to ground and operating over average
conductivity in the MF/low-HF bands.

For example, does 40% power the sky (redacted), another 40% power the
space (redacted), and the other 20% power the surface (redacted)?
Clearly, 100% of the RF power goes somewhere, and the various parts of it
must add up to 100% - so what are the proportions?

If the /M (mobile) set-up was changed to a /P (portable) one with a 5/8
lambda ground-mounted antenna, the sky (redacted) proportion would lower
and the surface/space (redacted) would increase - but from what to what?

I'm beginning to think that this topic is either so simple or so complex
that most Amateurs have either forgotten it or have never heard of it.

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 3/8/2015 4:17 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

I can see you are right in the running yourself...

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
On 3/8/2015 4:17 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

I can see you are right in the running yourself...

Hey, I'm not the one with the fundamental misunderstanding of radio theory
after 50+ years in the hobby.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 3/9/2015 2:26 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 3/8/2015 4:17 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

I can see you are right in the running yourself...

Hey, I'm not the one with the fundamental misunderstanding of radio theory
after 50+ years in the hobby.

The problem has nothing to do with radio theory.

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
On 3/9/2015 2:26 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 3/8/2015 4:17 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

I can see you are right in the running yourself...

Hey, I'm not the one with the fundamental misunderstanding of radio theory
after 50+ years in the hobby.

The problem has nothing to do with radio theory.

No, you're right. It's to do with Spike's stupidity.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 3/8/2015 4:17 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

I can see you are right in the running yourself...

Hey, I'm not the one with the fundamental misunderstanding of radio theory
after 50+ years in the hobby.

There is no "fundamental misunderstanding" unless it be yours. At
worst, loose phraseology.

--
Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 3/8/2015 4:17 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

I can see you are right in the running yourself...

Hey, I'm not the one with the fundamental misunderstanding of radio theory
after 50+ years in the hobby.

There is no "fundamental misunderstanding" unless it be yours. At
worst, loose phraseology.


I suggest you re-read Spike's multiple, confused posts about all the
different types of waves that pour forth from an antenna.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 3/8/2015 4:17 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

I can see you are right in the running yourself...

Hey, I'm not the one with the fundamental misunderstanding of radio theory
after 50+ years in the hobby.

There is no "fundamental misunderstanding" unless it be yours. At
worst, loose phraseology.


I suggest you re-read Spike's multiple, confused posts about all the
different types of waves that pour forth from an antenna.

I have. Your comprehension of common expressions is lacking. Some of
the Americans pedantically criticised his description, but I think we
have all come round to knowing what he meant now, and that disagreement
has been resolved. You seem to want to repeat it just to be abusive
rather than to contribute to the discussion.

--
Roger Hayter

On 09/03/15 15:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 3/8/2015 4:17 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

I can see you are right in the running yourself...

Hey, I'm not the one with the fundamental misunderstanding of radio theory
after 50+ years in the hobby.

There is no "fundamental misunderstanding" unless it be yours. At
worst, loose phraseology.


I suggest you re-read Spike's multiple, confused posts about all the
different types of waves that pour forth from an antenna.

I have. Your comprehension of common expressions is lacking. Some of
the Americans pedantically criticised his description, but I think we
have all come round to knowing what he meant now, and that disagreement
has been resolved. You seem to want to repeat it just to be abusive
rather than to contribute to the discussion.


While Steve has used words I do not condone, his point is valid. Spike's
post was nonsense- so much so that I thought it was some joke. Had a
newcomer made a similar post he, and probably you in your Percy phase,
along with your cronies, would have ridiculed him and made adverse
comments about newcomers, the new licensing scheme, etc. etc.

Your reaction now merely shows your hypocrisy.

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 3/8/2015 4:17 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Spike, you're a gormless ****. Seriously, you're giving Gareth Alun Evans
G4SDW a run for his money here.

I can see you are right in the running yourself...

Hey, I'm not the one with the fundamental misunderstanding of radio theory
after 50+ years in the hobby.

There is no "fundamental misunderstanding" unless it be yours. At
worst, loose phraseology.


I suggest you re-read Spike's multiple, confused posts about all the
different types of waves that pour forth from an antenna.

I have. Your comprehension of common expressions is lacking. Some of
the Americans pedantically criticised his description, but I think we
have all come round to knowing what he meant now, and that disagreement
has been resolved. You seem to want to repeat it just to be abusive
rather than to contribute to the discussion.

Tosh. Spike posted gibberish, several times, and was quite rightly
corrected for it. His subsequent petulance about being put right is the
icing on the cake. He's done a Gareth.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur