The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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

Is it that some form of electric "twist" must be appled to Free Space, and
that
the maximum "twist" occurs with 1/4 cycle of a quarter wave?

Were there to be two short antennae closely spaced, but fed 90 degrees
out of phase, wouldthat result in efficient radiation?

What if they were spaced by 1/4 wave but with the feeders completely
screened
from Free Space, or does there have to be all fractions of antnna betwen the
two extremes?

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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

Is it that some form of electric "twist" must be appled to Free Space, and
that the maximum "twist" occurs with 1/4 cycle of a quarter wave?

Were there to be two short antennae closely spaced, but fed 90 degrees
out of phase, would that result in efficient radiation?

What if they were spaced by 1/4 wave but with the feeders completely
screened
from Free Space, or does there have to be all fractions of antnna betwen
the two extremes?


Why not build a model on, say, 70cm and find out for yourself?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.uk

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5:27:41 AM UTC-5, 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?

Ding, ding, ding. Totally false statement.
Don't pass go, don't collect $200.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
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.

That is a side issue of the phenomenon

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
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.
That is a side issue of the phenomenon

Convince yourself by calculating the retarded potential from a far field
when
the same field strength comes from a dipole and when it comes from a short
antenna.
You find that there has to be more power fed into the short antenna
(irrespective of
feed impedances and ohmic resistances) to achieve that same field strength.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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?

The entrinsic impedance of free space.

snip remaining ignorant babble


--
Jim Pennino

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
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.
That is a side issue of the phenomenon

Convince yourself by calculating the retarded potential from a far field
when
the same field strength comes from a dipole and when it comes from a short
antenna. You find that there has to be more power fed into the short
antenna (irrespective of
feed impedances and ohmic resistances) to achieve that same field
strength.


It's all about capture area. A big antenna will radiate more effectively
than a small one, provided you can match the feed point impedance.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.uk

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5:27:41 AM UTC-5, 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?

Ding, ding, ding. Totally false statement.
Don't pass go, don't collect $200.

Convince yourself by calculating the retarded potential from a far field
when
the same field strength comes from a dipole and when it comes from a short
antenna.
You find that there has to be more power fed into the short antenna
(irrespective of
feed impedances and ohmic resistances) to achieve that same field strength.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"gareth" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5:27:41 AM UTC-5, 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?

Ding, ding, ding. Totally false statement.
Don't pass go, don't collect $200.

# Convince yourself by calculating the retarded potential from a far field
# when
# the same field strength comes from a dipole and when it comes from a short
# antenna.
#You find that there has to be more power fed into the short antenna
# (irrespective of
# feed impedances and ohmic resistances) to achieve that same field
strength.

Well, I don't know what you are calling "retarded potential".

At any rate, if the radiated power is equal for two different antennas, why
would the field strength be different, except as related to pattern
differences?

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 6:06:33 PM UTC-5, gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5:27:41 AM UTC-5, 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?

Ding, ding, ding. Totally false statement.
Don't pass go, don't collect $200.

Convince yourself by calculating the retarded potential from a far field
when
the same field strength comes from a dipole and when it comes from a short
antenna.
You find that there has to be more power fed into the short antenna
(irrespective of
feed impedances and ohmic resistances) to achieve that same field strength.

To put it plainly in a language you can likely understand, bull****!

If you feed a 1/2 wave dipole with 100 watts, almost all of that power
will be radiated by the antenna.

If you feed a 1/10 wave dipole with 100 watts, almost all of that power
will be radiated by the antenna.
Any difference between the two would be so small as likely to be hard to
measure. This is etched in stone theory known for many years.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"Wayne" wrote in message
...

Well, I don't know what you are calling "retarded potential".

It is the term for the electric potential that must have existed on an
antenna when
analysing the radiated signal at some distant point.

It is termed, "retarded" because the radiation originated at some time in
the past.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"gareth" wrote in message ...

"Wayne" wrote in message
...

Well, I don't know what you are calling "retarded potential".

It is the term for the electric potential that must have existed on an
antenna when
analysing the radiated signal at some distant point.

It is termed, "retarded" because the radiation originated at some time in
the past.

OK now I know. I hadn't heard the term before.

But, how about my question?

" if the radiated power is equal for two different antennas, why
would the field strength be different, except as related to pattern
differences?"

The radiated power just is spread out differently.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ... "Wayne"
wrote in message
...
Well, I don't know what you are calling "retarded potential".
It is the term for the electric potential that must have existed on an
antenna when
analysing the radiated signal at some distant point.
It is termed, "retarded" because the radiation originated at some time in
the past.
OK now I know. I hadn't heard the term before.
But, how about my question?
" if the radiated power is equal for two different antennas, why would the
field strength be different, except as related to pattern differences?"
The radiated power just is spread out differently.

Quoting from Electromagnetism by F.N.H.Robinson in the Oxfors Physic Series,
1973 edition ISBN 0 19 851806 4, Chapter 11, Radiation and page 100 ..

The radiated power is proportional to the current times the antenna length
divided
by the wavelenght, and all squared.

Therefore, to achieve the same radiated power from a short antenna, the
current
in the antenna has to be higher.

HTH

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"gareth" wrote in message ...

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ... "Wayne"
wrote in message
...
Well, I don't know what you are calling "retarded potential".
It is the term for the electric potential that must have existed on an
antenna when
analysing the radiated signal at some distant point.
It is termed, "retarded" because the radiation originated at some time in
the past.
OK now I know. I hadn't heard the term before.
But, how about my question?
" if the radiated power is equal for two different antennas, why would
the field strength be different, except as related to pattern
differences?"
The radiated power just is spread out differently.

Quoting from Electromagnetism by F.N.H.Robinson in the Oxfors Physic
Series,
1973 edition ISBN 0 19 851806 4, Chapter 11, Radiation and page 100 ..

The radiated power is proportional to the current times the antenna length
divided
by the wavelenght, and all squared.

Therefore, to achieve the same radiated power from a short antenna, the
current
in the antenna has to be higher.

But wasn't it implicit in your original statement that the power was equal
in both the 1/4 wave and the shorter antenna?

So for your assertion, we don't need to know the current.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ...
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ... "Wayne"
wrote in message
...
Well, I don't know what you are calling "retarded potential".
It is the term for the electric potential that must have existed on an
antenna when
analysing the radiated signal at some distant point.
It is termed, "retarded" because the radiation originated at some time
in the past.
OK now I know. I hadn't heard the term before.
But, how about my question?
" if the radiated power is equal for two different antennas, why would
the field strength be different, except as related to pattern
differences?"
The radiated power just is spread out differently.
Quoting from Electromagnetism by F.N.H.Robinson in the Oxfors Physic
Series,
1973 edition ISBN 0 19 851806 4, Chapter 11, Radiation and page 100 ..
The radiated power is proportional to the current times the antenna length
divided
by the wavelenght, and all squared.
Therefore, to achieve the same radiated power from a short antenna, the
current
in the antenna has to be higher.
But wasn't it implicit in your original statement that the power was equal
in both the 1/4 wave and the shorter antenna?

No, for I was referring to the power arriving at some point in the far field

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

On 9/11/2015 1:10 PM, gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ... "Wayne"
wrote in message
...
Well, I don't know what you are calling "retarded potential".
It is the term for the electric potential that must have existed on an
antenna when
analysing the radiated signal at some distant point.
It is termed, "retarded" because the radiation originated at some time in
the past.
OK now I know. I hadn't heard the term before.
But, how about my question?
" if the radiated power is equal for two different antennas, why would the
field strength be different, except as related to pattern differences?"
The radiated power just is spread out differently.

Quoting from Electromagnetism by F.N.H.Robinson in the Oxfors Physic Series,
1973 edition ISBN 0 19 851806 4, Chapter 11, Radiation and page 100 ..

The radiated power is proportional to the current times the antenna length
divided
by the wavelenght, and all squared.

Therefore, to achieve the same radiated power from a short antenna, the
current
in the antenna has to be higher.

There is no contradiction there. Current is not power. Power is
voltage times current. Since the impedance of a short antenna is not
the same as the impedance of a larger antenna, it makes perfect sense
that the current for a given power level will not be the same.

--

Rick

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ... "Wayne"
wrote in message
...
Well, I don't know what you are calling "retarded potential".
It is the term for the electric potential that must have existed on an
antenna when
analysing the radiated signal at some distant point.
It is termed, "retarded" because the radiation originated at some time in
the past.
OK now I know. I hadn't heard the term before.
But, how about my question?
" if the radiated power is equal for two different antennas, why would the
field strength be different, except as related to pattern differences?"
The radiated power just is spread out differently.

Quoting from Electromagnetism by F.N.H.Robinson in the Oxfors Physic Series,
1973 edition ISBN 0 19 851806 4, Chapter 11, Radiation and page 100 ..

The radiated power is proportional to the current times the antenna length
divided
by the wavelenght, and all squared.

Therefore, to achieve the same radiated power from a short antenna, the
current
in the antenna has to be higher.

HTH

Congratulations, you have just confirmed Ohm's law.


--
Jim Pennino

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ... "Wayne"
wrote in message
...
Well, I don't know what you are calling "retarded potential".
It is the term for the electric potential that must have existed on an
antenna when
analysing the radiated signal at some distant point.
It is termed, "retarded" because the radiation originated at some time in
the past.
OK now I know. I hadn't heard the term before.
But, how about my question?
" if the radiated power is equal for two different antennas, why would the
field strength be different, except as related to pattern differences?"
The radiated power just is spread out differently.

Quoting from Electromagnetism by F.N.H.Robinson in the Oxfors Physic Series,
1973 edition ISBN 0 19 851806 4, Chapter 11, Radiation and page 100 ..

The radiated power is proportional to the current times the antenna length
divided
by the wavelenght, and all squared.

Therefore, to achieve the same radiated power from a short antenna, the
current
in the antenna has to be higher.

HTH

Congratulations, you have just confirmed Ohm's law.


Does he get a certificate or something to honour this milestone in radio
science?

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

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...

There is no contradiction there. Current is not power. Power is voltage
times current. Since the impedance of a short antenna is not the same as
the impedance of a larger antenna, it makes perfect sense that the current
for a given power level will not be the same.

Feed 1kW into your 472kHz antenna and get only 1W erp, most of
the high current driving the ohmic resistance and not the radiation
resistance

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

On 9/11/2015 1:48 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

There is no contradiction there. Current is not power. Power is voltage
times current. Since the impedance of a short antenna is not the same as
the impedance of a larger antenna, it makes perfect sense that the current
for a given power level will not be the same.

Feed 1kW into your 472kHz antenna and get only 1W erp, most of
the high current driving the ohmic resistance and not the radiation
resistance

You have had this discussion with many others here before. What is your
point? Every antenna design has different losses depending on all the
details of construction. So what?

--

Rick

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/11/2015 1:48 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

There is no contradiction there. Current is not power. Power is
voltage
times current. Since the impedance of a short antenna is not the same
as
the impedance of a larger antenna, it makes perfect sense that the
current
for a given power level will not be the same.

Feed 1kW into your 472kHz antenna and get only 1W erp, most of
the high current driving the ohmic resistance and not the radiation
resistance

You have had this discussion with many others here before. What is your
point?

The point I was making was a courteous reply to you.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

On 9/11/2015 10:58 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/11/2015 1:48 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

There is no contradiction there. Current is not power. Power is
voltage
times current. Since the impedance of a short antenna is not the same
as
the impedance of a larger antenna, it makes perfect sense that the
current
for a given power level will not be the same.

Feed 1kW into your 472kHz antenna and get only 1W erp, most of
the high current driving the ohmic resistance and not the radiation
resistance

You have had this discussion with many others here before. What is your
point?

The point I was making was a courteous reply to you.

I'm talking about the technical point. Your reply doesn't have much
technical merit about the question you were originally asking. You
snipped the part I was replying to.

Therefore, to achieve the same radiated power from a short antenna, the
current
in the antenna has to be higher.

My point is that the current is not relevant in the theoretical case.
The ohmic losses you are talking about have to do with the construction
of the antenna, not the geometry. Make an antenna from a super
conductor with no ohmic losses and you will see the same power radiate
from both a short or a long antenna given the same power input to the
antenna.

There is my courteous reply to you, and fully on topic. Can you give a
valid technical reply about that?

--

Rick

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...

My point is that the current is not relevant in the theoretical case. The
ohmic losses you are talking about have to do with the construction of the
antenna, not the geometry. Make an antenna from a super conductor with no
ohmic losses and you will see the same power radiate from both a short or
a long antenna given the same power input to the antenna.

No you won't, for not only will your feeder be matched to your antenna, but
the antenna will be matched to the feeder, and the stored energy that is not
radiated because
of the shorted antenna will go back down the feeder.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

On 9/12/2015 3:10 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

My point is that the current is not relevant in the theoretical case. The
ohmic losses you are talking about have to do with the construction of the
antenna, not the geometry. Make an antenna from a super conductor with no
ohmic losses and you will see the same power radiate from both a short or
a long antenna given the same power input to the antenna.

No you won't, for not only will your feeder be matched to your antenna, but
the antenna will be matched to the feeder, and the stored energy that is not
radiated because
of the shorted antenna will go back down the feeder.

Uh, if they are matched, there won't be any reflection energy. It all
gets radiated. You keep getting hung up on the specifics of an
installation when you appear to be asking a question about theory. Yes,
short antenna are not used in practice because they are hard to match to
a feedline and transmitter. But your original question as posited was
about the inherent differences in radiated power given an amount of
power input to the antenna. Quit mixing the theory and the practice or
clearly state which one you are talking about.

Here, this question you asked originally...

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

Nothing here says anything about the ohmic resistance of the antenna or
the impedance of the feedline. You seem to be asking about how the
power leaves the antenna and radiates as an EM wave.

--

Rick

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...
Uh, if they are matched, there won't be any reflection energy.

Untrue, because you match the inout impedance but not the radiation
resistance,
which in the case of a dipole are largely the same, so, yes, in a dipole it
does all get radiated.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

On 9/12/2015 5:33 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:17:27 +0100
"gareth" wrote:

"rickman" wrote in message
...
Uh, if they are matched, there won't be any reflection energy.

Untrue, because you match the inout impedance but not the radiation
resistance,
which in the case of a dipole are largely the same, so, yes, in a dipole it
does all get radiated.



If it doesn't get radiated with a matched antenna that has a small
radiation resistance then that remaining energy is converted into heat
in the antenna/matching network, not reflected back to the Tx.

Picture that with ideal components and then tell me what happens. Or
better yet, since we are talking about antenna geometry and not feed
lines and matching networks, imagine *no* feed line, just a signal
generator with a dipole attached directly to the output. The output
impedance of the generator exactly matches the input impedance of the
antenna in each case. The power measured going into the antenna in each
case is 100 W. Will the emitted field be the same?

--

Rick

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 9/12/2015 5:33 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:17:27 +0100
"gareth" wrote:

"rickman" wrote in message
...
Uh, if they are matched, there won't be any reflection energy.

Untrue, because you match the inout impedance but not the radiation
resistance,
which in the case of a dipole are largely the same, so, yes, in a dipole
it
does all get radiated.



If it doesn't get radiated with a matched antenna that has a small
radiation resistance then that remaining energy is converted into heat
in the antenna/matching network, not reflected back to the Tx.

# Picture that with ideal components and then tell me what happens. Or
# better yet, since we are talking about antenna geometry and not feed
# lines and matching networks, imagine *no* feed line, just a signal
# generator with a dipole attached directly to the output. The output
# impedance of the generator exactly matches the input impedance of the
# antenna in each case. The power measured going into the antenna in each
# case is 100 W. Will the emitted field be the same?

I'm with you. For a valid comparison of the radiation of two antennas, they
both have to have the same power radiated to start with.
If one has power reflected/consumed by heat or whatever, then simply crank
up the power for that antenna until they both radiate the same power.

Let's consider an isotropic antenna (that's about the limit of "shortness")
compared with whatever bigger antenna.

At distance D, the isotropic antenna will have all its power spread over a
spherical surface of radius D.

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.

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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..

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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.

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

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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.

--
Roger Hayter

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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

The nature of Free Space (Once called, "The Lumeniferous Aether")
 

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