Reg Edwards wrote:
"H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote

I'm often confronted with problems as a physicist where one can only

get a

handle on upper and lower bounds.
Lower bound:
I'd say the minimum number and length of radials is 3 (must define a

plane)

and 1/4 wavelength (satisfies boundary conditions).

Upper (infinite sheet of copper)
As Walt and Reg have debated, the "Cleese extreme" (to steal from

Reg's

post) is trying to duplicate the "infinite perfectly conducting

plane" of

our elementary physics books.
Cheers and beers


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

Yes Adam, a logical way of looking at it.

Associated with any number there is always another number which is
sometimes, but not often enough, used to describe its uncertainty.

But nearly always it takes much longer to determine the uncertainty
than it does to arrive at the first number, especially if the first
number is the result of a measurement.
----
Reg.



What is the uncertainty of the uncertainty? If the uncertainty is a
number, then, "Associated with any number there is always another
number which is sometimes, but not often enough, used to describe its
uncertainty." You're going to end up with an infinite string of
uncertainties if you keep this up, Reg.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH (Who never could understand Sartre.)