Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you really want to go there? :-) According to QED, you first need to
find some negative energy photons. Then you need to get them to
propagate backward in time and subsequently interact with electrons.
Then, the electrons can then move forward in time and emit positive
energy photons while conserving momentum.

No prediction made by QED has ever been wrong. How's that
for a track record?

A wave of photons. It's a physics joke, Cecil. Laugh already.

I already did, many hours ago.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:45:33 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

No prediction made by QED has ever been wrong. How's that
for a track record?

No prediction made by QED has ever been right. Every experiment
destroys some of the knowledge of the system which was obtained by
previous experiments.

73's (±3dB)
Werner Heisenberg

p.s. For the purpose of the original posting of "image theory:" There
is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the
mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized.

Richard Clark wrote:
p.s. For the purpose of the original posting of "image theory:" There
is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the
mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized.

That's the point I was trying to make. One cannot correctly
say "the radials are a reflector" or "the radials are non-
radiating". The radials are partially reflecting,
partially absorbing, partially radiating, and partially
non-radiating based on a level of probability for each
of the possible events which are not necessarily limited
to those four events. It's not a 100% either/or situation.

The original mirror Vs radiation "argument" between the
authors is like arguing whether gray is black or white.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Do you really want to go there? :-) According to QED, you first need
to find some negative energy photons. Then you need to get them to
propagate backward in time and subsequently interact with electrons.
Then, the electrons can then move forward in time and emit positive
energy photons while conserving momentum.


No prediction made by QED has ever been wrong. How's that
for a track record?

I think QED is a very clever idea and I applaud your effort toward
finding a good use for it. :-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
I think QED is a very clever idea and I applaud your effort toward
finding a good use for it. :-)

It is very useful in settling the arguments about
whether gray is black or white. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

It is said that the elevated radials are an artificial ground plane,
simulate a ground plane, form a virtual ground plane, or approximate a
ground plane. It may be that the radials perform the same function as a
ground plane, but do not form a real ground plane.

For example, the Butternut antenna manual at following web address says that
elevated radials are an artificaial ground plane.

http://www.bencher.com/pdfs/00361ZZV.pdf

What functions do the radials perform that are the same as a real ground
plane? What similarities are there between radials and a real ground plane?

David wrote:
What functions do the radials perform that are the same as a real ground
plane? What similarities are there between radials and a real ground plane?

How is the monopole antenna system connected to the
real ground plane - as opposed to an ideal infinite
conducting plane? What about radials buried inside
the real ground plane?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:32:51 -0000, "David" nospam@nospam wrote:

It is said that the elevated radials are an artificial ground plane,
simulate a ground plane, form a virtual ground plane, or approximate a
ground plane. It may be that the radials perform the same function as a
ground plane, but do not form a real ground plane.

Hi David,

You've recited this more than once. Repetition does nothing to reveal
these as anything more than disconnected statements.

For example, the Butternut antenna manual at following web address says that
elevated radials are an artificaial ground plane.

http://www.bencher.com/pdfs/00361ZZV.pdf

Simple observation of the wandering usage through that document would
inform most that "ground plane" is a term of convenience.

What functions do the radials perform that are the same as a real ground
plane?

There is no such thing as a "real ground plane."

What similarities are there between radials and a real ground plane?

None.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC