"John S" wrote in message
...

In what way have I been abusive, Gareth?

See below.

It seems to me that you are a lost and lonely soul and are seeking some
attention.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
He wants a row, as always. Why else is he hurling abuse and ignoring
helpful posts?
That is what he has always done.

You are the one who is hurling abuse. For example, all of your posts to
this thread so far are personal attacks on me.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

If you look in the uk.r.a archive going back to 1997 or so, long before I
started posting, you will see he has been like this for decades. The only
changes have been his sock puppets (a long list) and his prime targets.

You're the one who is hurling abuse, repeatedly, into this thread.

You need to learn that those who disagre with you are not being abusive
not are they a problem of any sort.

"Steve" wrote in message
...
Probably proportionately more will be lost as heat as a very short
antenna will be a low impedance, therefore current, driven job and I sq*R
losses within the antenna will play their part. Apart from those
additional losses, it should radiate all that is left,

Some will be radiated, but in a short antenna, much less than with a
long antenna. That which is not radiated will reflect, or bounce off the
end and arrive back at the feed point.

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
But I^2 R losses are not part of the theory Gareth presented.

You may think so, but I didn't give my inside leg measurement, either, nor
did I discuss electron transport from one atom's orbit to another.

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
Perhaps 100 watts to the matching system.
But, that's irrelevant to your theory.

So far, no-one has discussed what is NOT my theory, but established physics.

On 22/10/2014 19:05, gareth wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
Attention.

He's a very sad, demented attention-seeking troll, as evidenced by the
Google archive of his posts dating back to 1997. What's striking about
them is that they haven't changed much in that time.

Yet again, the abuse that you seek to lay at my door originates with you.



How can the truth be 'abuse'?

--
Collecting Bitcoins for my Pension
Please send BTC to 1kZKQMvVPce11u7xG1KbArtrAenuxdZue
I thank you!

"No A1A required" wrote in message
...
On 22/10/2014 19:05, gareth wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
Attention.
He's a very sad, demented attention-seeking troll, as evidenced by the
Google archive of his posts dating back to 1997. What's striking about
them is that they haven't changed much in that time.
Yet again, the abuse that you seek to lay at my door originates with you.

How can the truth be 'abuse'?

Grow up, Not-Ham Hull, G7KUJ

"Wymsey" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:38:08 +0100, gareth wrote:

I despair that those who are motivated to shout out childish remarks
continue to do so, even in the face of an informative post.

The thing is, if you engage with people who don't like you then you will
experience their dislike of you. If you ignore them all will be well and
all manner of things will be well.

Nobody here knows anything about me to dislike me. Discussing
technical matters is not a matter of dislike.

I didn't engage with them. I posted what I hoped to me a URL to
useful material and they responded with infantile oubursts.

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Probably proportionately more will be lost as heat as a very short
antenna will be a low impedance, therefore current, driven job and I sq*R
losses within the antenna will play their part. Apart from those
additional losses, it should radiate all that is left,

Some will be radiated, but in a short antenna, much less than with a
long antenna. That which is not radiated will reflect, or bounce off the
end and arrive back at the feed point.

If the short antenna is a dipole, then the two reflections will be
considerably out of
phase, resulting in vector cancellation, which will also contribute to
reduced
efficiency of radiation.