"gareth" wrote in message ...

"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.

Good, because those things are just as irrelevant as I^2 R to your theory.

"Wayne" wrote in message
...


"gareth" wrote in message ...

"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.

Good, because those things are just as irrelevant as I^2 R to your theory.

Not MY theory, but established physics, as described in the URL in the OP

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:08:11 +0100, gareth wrote:


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

Oh, the irony.

In message , No A1A
required writes
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'?

If someone has a big nose, I would have thought that shouting "You've
got a big nose!" at them would fairly be classed as 'abuse' (despite
being true).
--
Ian

On 22/10/2014 19:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , No A1A
required writes
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'?

If someone has a big nose, I would have thought that shouting "You've
got a big nose!" at them would fairly be classed as 'abuse' (despite
being true).

Indeed. However the comment was in reply to the paragraph above. This
statement cannot be refuted. It's not abuse.

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

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , No A1A
required escribió:
How can the truth be 'abuse'?
It meets *his* definition of abuse, just as he describes other posts as
"grossly offensive" where no-one else would, including the judge at the
trial where he was convicted of sending a malicious communication:

Untrue

The silly old fool has a remarkably thin skin for a troll, and like many
cowardly trolls he can dish it out but can't take it.

Untrue, and once again it is from you that the abuse originates.

This article in the Register sums up the troll, Gareth Alun Evans, and
his multiple personality defects, to a T:
"Trolls are thought to possess a suite of nasty character traits called
the "dark tetrad", which means they possess the charming combination of
narcissism, sadism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy.
This makes them vicious, manipulative, cruel, self-obsessed, abusive and
quite possibly bananas."

That would seem to be a good description of your mentally unhealthy
obsession with me. old chap.

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , No A1A
required writes
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'?

If someone has a big nose, I would have thought that shouting "You've got
a big nose!" at them would fairly be classed as 'abuse' (despite being
true).

The difference there being that what is being shouted in an infantile manner
above about me is not true.

Review the number of times that tomlinson has appeared out-of-the-blue
mouthing
off at me, and muse as to where any mental problems might lie.

"No A1A required" wrote in message
...
On 22/10/2014 19:49, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , No A1A
required writes
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'?
If someone has a big nose, I would have thought that shouting "You've
got a big nose!" at them would fairly be classed as 'abuse' (despite
being true).
Indeed. However the comment was in reply to the paragraph above. This
statement cannot be refuted. It's not abuse.

Grow up, there, Not-Ham Hull, G7KUJ

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:49:25 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:


If someone has a big nose, I would have thought that shouting "You've
got a big nose!" at them would fairly be classed as 'abuse' (despite
being true).

So if I told Gareth he had a fat arse and a face like a bulldog chewing a
wasp, it would be abuse?

On 22/10/2014 19:09, gareth wrote:

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.

How might you modify that statement to deal with a situation where the
"short antenna" is a quarterwave GP, and the long antenna is a
three-quarterwave GP?