"gareth" wrote:
"Spike" wrote in message
...
Not in the UK... We have a progressive licensing system here, in which
most people never progress at all. The level they qualify at is more
concerned with how to fit mains plugs - something that isn't required here
as moulded plugs have been compulsory for 20 years.

WHS

And the tragedy is that even those who pass at the highest level
can show no technical acumen whatsoever, to the extent that on Usenet
they join in sneering but without ever understanding any of the technical
content. We have one such person over in uk.radio.amateur who is currently
being shunned for his infantile outbursts of ignorance.

SHUN FAIL

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

On 3/9/2015 10:11 AM, Jeff wrote:


As are basically all formulas. Even Ohm's Law was derived from actual
observations.


That is certainly not correct in a lot of cases. The inverse square law
for free space path loss, for example, is derived intuitively and simply
from the transmitted power being equally distributed in all directions,
not from observations.

S= P*(1/(4piD^2))

Jeff

Jeff,

Actually, not. It was observed first back in the 1700's-1800's when the
link between electricity and magnetism was being investigated. And
hundreds of years before that, it was a know property of magnets.

The equations didn't come until later.

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

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

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 3/9/2015 5:11 AM, Spike wrote:
On 09/03/15 00:14, rickman wrote:
On 3/8/2015 6:56 AM, Spike wrote:

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.

I think everyone understands the question just fine. But it is a
question without an answer.

But that *is* an answer!

What you are saying is that the research remains to be done.

There is no research than can answer the question any better than what
you have been given. The wave transmission modes you ask about are very
little dependent on the antenna and much more dependent on the state of
the environment. So there is no way possible to give an answer that
relates the antenna design to something that depends on other variables.


What you are asking is when you feed a bird, how much of that feed
produces crap that lands on your car based on the composition of the
feed? If the feed has more fat and less protein does that put more crap
on the car or the driveway?

I'd say, based on that, that nutrition science is better understood than
the e/m fields emitted by an antenna.

Do you understand the responses you have been given? Why do you feel
the antenna has anything to do with the modes of propagation?

If there were an answer to your question, why do you think it would not
have been answered 50, 80 or 100 years ago?

--

Rick

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.

On 09/03/15 15:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 3/9/2015 10:11 AM, Jeff wrote:


As are basically all formulas. Even Ohm's Law was derived from actual
observations.


That is certainly not correct in a lot of cases. The inverse square law
for free space path loss, for example, is derived intuitively and simply
from the transmitted power being equally distributed in all directions,
not from observations.

S= P*(1/(4piD^2))

Jeff

Jeff,

Actually, not. It was observed first back in the 1700's-1800's when the
link between electricity and magnetism was being investigated. And
hundreds of years before that, it was a know property of magnets.

The equations didn't come until later.


You are confusing a magnetic field with an EM field. You can have a
magnetic field with no E field- eg from a bar magnet. It will have a
magnet field which exhibits the inverse square law but no E field.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 20:03:20 -0400, rickman wrote:

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

This always seem to happen - an interesting and informative thread gets
hijacked and abused by ignorant trolls.



Charlie.
M0WYM.


--
Hello Wisconsin!

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:10:00 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

Nor do you spend your time putting done newcomer

Here we go - sigh, another group you have to be plonked from.. Please
give it rest.

TIA.

--
Hello Wisconsin!

"Charlie" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 20:03:20 -0400, rickman wrote:

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

This always seem to happen - an interesting and informative thread gets
hijacked and abused by ignorant trolls.

'Ello? have reay and cole been spouting forth abuse yet again?

(If so, do not elaborate, best to leave them in the KF with the dunce's
caps on their heads)

On 3/9/2015 12:54 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 09/03/15 15:43, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 3/9/2015 10:11 AM, Jeff wrote:


As are basically all formulas. Even Ohm's Law was derived from actual
observations.


That is certainly not correct in a lot of cases. The inverse square law
for free space path loss, for example, is derived intuitively and simply
from the transmitted power being equally distributed in all directions,
not from observations.

S= P*(1/(4piD^2))

Jeff

Jeff,

Actually, not. It was observed first back in the 1700's-1800's when the
link between electricity and magnetism was being investigated. And
hundreds of years before that, it was a know property of magnets.

The equations didn't come until later.


You are confusing a magnetic field with an EM field. You can have a
magnetic field with no E field- eg from a bar magnet. It will have a
magnet field which exhibits the inverse square law but no E field.



Brian,

No, I'm not confusing the two. But my point is that one led to the
other. The equations didn't appear out of mid air - measurements
preceded them.

The observations I was talking about in the 1700's-1800's were for EM
fields. And my point was their loss with distance is the same as with M
fields - which had been known for a much longer time.

And E fields were also measured back in the days of Leyden jars and the
like.

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

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