Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

wrote:
On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 6:52:44 PM UTC-5, Wayne wrote:

As I understand Gareth's assertion, at every position on the point source
sphere, the field strength would be lower than for a bigger antenna
replacing the point source.
I doubt that is true.

He's trying to blame the poor old radiator, "free space", or the "Aether"
for rig to feed line to radiator matching losses.

My reason to even join this circus is to bring to his attention that
his opening statement is totally false.

The Lumeniferous Aether... The story of Art Unwin's long lost cousin.

chortle..

It seems quite evident that Gareth's mental state has recently deteriorated
even further than its usual squalid depths.

Have you nothing to say on the subject of aerials? You could at least
correct the spelling of "luminiferous" if you have nothing else useful
to say.

What's to say? Gareth has poured a bucket of faeces into the group, there's
precisely zero useful conversation to have with the gibbering idiot on the
subject of antennas.

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

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

wrote:
On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 6:52:44 PM UTC-5, Wayne wrote:

As I understand Gareth's assertion, at every position on the point
source sphere, the field strength would be lower than for a bigger
antenna replacing the point source. I doubt that is true.

He's trying to blame the poor old radiator, "free space", or the "Aether"
for rig to feed line to radiator matching losses.

My reason to even join this circus is to bring to his attention that
his opening statement is totally false.

The Lumeniferous Aether... The story of Art Unwin's long lost cousin.

chortle..

It seems quite evident that Gareth's mental state has recently deteriorated
even further than its usual squalid depths.

Have you nothing to say on the subject of aerials? You could at least
correct the spelling of "luminiferous" if you have nothing else useful
to say.

What's to say? Gareth has poured a bucket of faeces into the group, there's
precisely zero useful conversation to have with the gibbering idiot on the
subject of antennas.

So why waste our time by pointing out what a bad boy he is? Do you
want our approval or something? FWIW, I think Gareth probably does
think he is talking sense, which makes it courter-productive to just
abuse him without addressing the issues.

--
Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

wrote:
On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 6:52:44 PM UTC-5, Wayne wrote:

As I understand Gareth's assertion, at every position on the point
source sphere, the field strength would be lower than for a bigger
antenna replacing the point source. I doubt that is true.

He's trying to blame the poor old radiator, "free space", or the "Aether"
for rig to feed line to radiator matching losses.

My reason to even join this circus is to bring to his attention that
his opening statement is totally false.

The Lumeniferous Aether... The story of Art Unwin's long lost cousin.

chortle..

It seems quite evident that Gareth's mental state has recently deteriorated
even further than its usual squalid depths.

Have you nothing to say on the subject of aerials? You could at least
correct the spelling of "luminiferous" if you have nothing else useful
to say.

What's to say? Gareth has poured a bucket of faeces into the group, there's
precisely zero useful conversation to have with the gibbering idiot on the
subject of antennas.

So why waste our time by pointing out what a bad boy he is? Do you
want our approval or something? FWIW, I think Gareth probably does
think he is talking sense, which makes it courter-productive to just
abuse him without addressing the issues.

Gareth has demonstrated, time and again, that he is completely unwilling to
be corrected. There's nothing to be gained from "addressing the issues".

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

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

snip

What's to say? Gareth has poured a bucket of faeces into the group, there's
precisely zero useful conversation to have with the gibbering idiot on the
subject of antennas.

So why waste our time by pointing out what a bad boy he is? Do you
want our approval or something? FWIW, I think Gareth probably does
think he is talking sense, which makes it courter-productive to just
abuse him without addressing the issues.

Gareth has demonstrated, time and again, that he is completely unwilling to
be corrected. There's nothing to be gained from "addressing the issues".

So really there is nothing useful for you to say, then?

"It seems quite evident that Gareth's mental state has recently
deteriorated even further than its usual squalid depths" doesn't seem
enormously helpful in an antenna group.

--
Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

snip

What's to say? Gareth has poured a bucket of faeces into the group, there's
precisely zero useful conversation to have with the gibbering idiot on the
subject of antennas.

So why waste our time by pointing out what a bad boy he is? Do you
want our approval or something? FWIW, I think Gareth probably does
think he is talking sense, which makes it courter-productive to just
abuse him without addressing the issues.

Gareth has demonstrated, time and again, that he is completely unwilling to
be corrected. There's nothing to be gained from "addressing the issues".

So really there is nothing useful for you to say, then?

"It seems quite evident that Gareth's mental state has recently
deteriorated even further than its usual squalid depths" doesn't seem
enormously helpful in an antenna group.

In the wider context of highlighting the total technical bankruptcy in
Gareth's postings here, it's on-topic as meta-discussion.

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

On 2015-09-10, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:27:38 +0100
gareth wrote:

What is the nature of free space such that it requires antennae to be
at least 1/4 wave
before accepting radiation efficiently?

There is no requirement of this nature, the only reason for relatively
large antennas is to achieve an input impedance that makes power
transfer into the antenna relatively efficient.

Also, short antennas have a very reduced broadband.
Alejandro Lieber


--

SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.org