If an antenna was really matched to its feeding objects, then all the energy
that
was not radiated (as in short antennae, for example) would pass back down
iinto the feeding objects.

However, in order for there to be a reflection back into the antenna from
the feeding objects,
there has to be a mismatch (fundamental
transmission line theory), and therefore, for the energy fed to antennae to
stay there, there
has to be a mismatch at the feeding point, so, therefore, the antenna is NOT
matched to its feeding objects.

"gareth" wrote:
If an antenna was really matched to its feeding objects, then all the energy
that
was not radiated (as in short antennae, for example) would pass back down
iinto the feeding objects.

However, in order for there to be a reflection back into the antenna from
the feeding objects,
there has to be a mismatch (fundamental
transmission line theory), and therefore, for the energy fed to antennae to
stay there, there
has to be a mismatch at the feeding point, so, therefore, the antenna is NOT
matched to its feeding objects.

Using the "Meths Scale", I'm scoring this post as "3 Bottles", bordering on
"4 Bottles".

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

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 13:17:46 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

"gareth" wrote:
If an antenna was really matched to its feeding objects, then all the energy
that
was not radiated (as in short antennae, for example) would pass back down
iinto the feeding objects.

However, in order for there to be a reflection back into the antenna from
the feeding objects,
there has to be a mismatch (fundamental
transmission line theory), and therefore, for the energy fed to antennae to
stay there, there
has to be a mismatch at the feeding point, so, therefore, the antenna is NOT
matched to its feeding objects.

Using the "Meths Scale", I'm scoring this post as "3 Bottles", bordering on
"4 Bottles".

Yes, 4 bottles would be:
"Where does the light go when I switch the lamp off"?

(answer: look into your refrigerator)

w.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:12:56 +0100, gareth wrote:

If an antenna was really matched to its feeding objects, then all the
energy that was not radiated (as in short antennae, for example) would
pass back down iinto the feeding objects.

However, in order for there to be a reflection back into the antenna
from the feeding objects,
there has to be a mismatch (fundamental transmission line theory), and
therefore, for the energy fed to antennae to stay there, there has to be
a mismatch at the feeding point, so, therefore, the antenna is NOT
matched to its feeding objects.

You seem a bit confused, Gareth. Are you feeling OK?

On 10/3/2015 11:21 AM, Bernie wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:12:56 +0100, gareth wrote:

If an antenna was really matched to its feeding objects, then all the
energy that was not radiated (as in short antennae, for example) would
pass back down iinto the feeding objects.

However, in order for there to be a reflection back into the antenna
from the feeding objects,
there has to be a mismatch (fundamental transmission line theory), and
therefore, for the energy fed to antennae to stay there, there has to be
a mismatch at the feeding point, so, therefore, the antenna is NOT
matched to its feeding objects.

You seem a bit confused, Gareth. Are you feeling OK?

Actually this one seems to make sense, then I realized it was a self
contradiction. He just proved that there has to be a mismatch in order
for the unradiated wave to remain in the antenna, but if it remains in
the antenna it must end up radiated... this just made my head explode!

Maybe he is smarter than we think!

--

Rick

On 10/3/2015 4:00 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/3/2015 11:21 AM, Bernie wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:12:56 +0100, gareth wrote:

If an antenna was really matched to its feeding objects, then all the
energy that was not radiated (as in short antennae, for example) would
pass back down iinto the feeding objects.

However, in order for there to be a reflection back into the antenna
from the feeding objects,
there has to be a mismatch (fundamental transmission line theory), and
therefore, for the energy fed to antennae to stay there, there has to be
a mismatch at the feeding point, so, therefore, the antenna is NOT
matched to its feeding objects.

You seem a bit confused, Gareth. Are you feeling OK?

Actually this one seems to make sense, then I realized it was a self
contradiction. He just proved that there has to be a mismatch in order
for the unradiated wave to remain in the antenna, but if it remains in
the antenna it must end up radiated... this just made my head explode!

Maybe he is smarter than we think!

I was going to post congratulations that no one replied to his nonsense,
but then I found this thread...

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 10/3/2015 11:21 AM, Bernie wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:12:56 +0100, gareth wrote:
If an antenna was really matched to its feeding objects, then all the
energy that was not radiated (as in short antennae, for example) would
pass back down iinto the feeding objects.
However, in order for there to be a reflection back into the antenna
from the feeding objects,
there has to be a mismatch (fundamental transmission line theory), and
therefore, for the energy fed to antennae to stay there, there has to be
a mismatch at the feeding point, so, therefore, the antenna is NOT
matched to its feeding objects.
You seem a bit confused, Gareth. Are you feeling OK?

Actually this one seems to make sense, then I realized it was a self
contradiction. He just proved that there has to be a mismatch in order
for the unradiated wave to remain in the antenna, but if it remains in the
antenna it must end up radiated ...

.... or being consumed as heat in ohmic losses, or in a continuous
oscillation of replenishing
and them re-absorbing the near field energies.

"rickman" wrote in message
...

I was going to post congratulations that no one replied to his nonsense,
but then I found this thread...

There is no nonsense in my threads. Now retired, I now have the time to muse
upon and discuss those things
in my electronics degree course from 40 years ago that did not add up*****.

Certainly, those like Winnie-The-Pooh, the bears of very little brain, might
think them to be nonsense,
in which case I quote from Pope,

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring"

Bears of very little brain will mouth off in tirades of personal abuse,
giving rise to
the old adage of empty vessels making the most noise.

***** Even the acadaemics get it wrong, consider the arrant nonsense from
Professor Maurice Hately, GM3HAT,
with his crossed-field antennas ideas.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:00:53 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/3/2015 11:21 AM, Bernie wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:12:56 +0100, gareth wrote:

If an antenna was really matched to its feeding objects, then all the
energy that was not radiated (as in short antennae, for example) would
pass back down iinto the feeding objects.

However, in order for there to be a reflection back into the antenna
from the feeding objects,
there has to be a mismatch (fundamental transmission line theory), and
therefore, for the energy fed to antennae to stay there, there has to
be a mismatch at the feeding point, so, therefore, the antenna is NOT
matched to its feeding objects.

You seem a bit confused, Gareth. Are you feeling OK?

Actually this one seems to make sense, then I realized it was a self
contradiction. He just proved that there has to be a mismatch in order
for the unradiated wave to remain in the antenna, but if it remains in
the antenna it must end up radiated... this just made my head explode!

Maybe he is smarter than we think!

Gareth insists that he's unfailingly honest and I have never known him to
admit he's wrong - misunderstood genius?

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:10:35 +0100, gareth wrote:


There is no nonsense in my threads.

You're not alone, Gareth. When Burt tried to tell them about all the
waves he was launching, he was similarly Pooh, Poohed.