"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Wymsey" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:17:38 +0100, gareth wrote:

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

If you ignore them all will be well and all manner of things will be
well.

It is important that real radio amateurs stand against the Childish
Broadcasters (CBers) for the good of the future of amateur / ham radio.

That there are a large number of such abusive individuals over in Yankland
who subscribe to this NG must be of greater concern to the world of
amateur radio.

And, of this morning, also from Britland, chipping in with personal attacks
out-of-the-blue, yet with no technical content.

"gareth" wrote in news:m28rqd$mds$1@dont-
email.me:

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


So do you.

rickman wrote in :

Do you guys not get that this is the sort of conversation he actually
seeks? When you continue to respond to him, you give him what he seeks
and so he continues to post.



I do now. I asked directly if he really wants to grow old and bitter and die
that way. He does. Well, forewarened is forearmed. Though why this has to
infest Usenet so insiduously, so vigorously, I don't know. Maybe that new 2-
year prsison sentence on trolling really is going to be useful, after all
there is no existing equivalent to the 'retraining order' applying to the
internet, so far as I know. If this crap had been happening in the street,
the coppers would have cleared it up years ago.

"gareth" wrote in
:

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


In thread after thrad after thread, many people have done exactly that, yet
you refuse to see it, and posy yet another thread insisting on having
discovered somethign new.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
On 22/10/2014 19:09, gareth wrote:
"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.


Incorrect, all the power that is not lost as heat will be radiated, power
is not reflected at the end and bounced off to arrive back at the feed
point. Look at the different current distribution on a short dipole
compared to a 1/2 wave dipole.

Where do you think that the standing wave pattern on a half wave comes from,
then, for you need a reflected wave to create such a pattern?

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
"gareth" wrote in news:m28rqd$mds$1@dont-
email.me:

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

So do you.

I take exceptions to rude personal remarks, but never to technical
discussion
which is what I am after.

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
.. .
I do now. I asked directly if he really wants to grow old and bitter and
die
that way. He does.

Well, it is you who is originating bitterness, and not I.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
That is 'normal' for him.

Untrue.

Sometimes he will post a non-abusive post of his
victim and totally misrepresent its content.

Untrue.

He fabricates abuse/insults
against himself as a justification for his own tirades of abuse.

Untrue. Perhaps you are confused by your own remarks about sheep,
methylated spirit, special brew, Asperger's Syndrome and lavatory cleaning,
topping it all with how easy it was to wind up some people, like shooting
rats in a barrel?

He also
fabricates stories about people

Untrue

for example I have never been dismissed,
left a company on bad terms, or even after a short period of employment-
as
he keeps claiming.

Untrue, that information was provided by Stan White G4EGH (Remember? Your
bosom pal whose wife babysat your children until you turned on him as you
turn on all others?) who decribed you
as being in floods of tears down the phone to him when you were terminated.


Nor do I have a brother who is a milkman, or one who has
ever been a milkman.

But your behaviour and language is as one from the working class and
not as one from the degree-educated minority.

Those two show the span of his obsessions.

I've never been obsessed by you; however, I have consistently responded
defensively
to your obsession with me, as evidenced by this and other non-technical
contributions
that you have maed to this thread.

His vendetta against me started

Incorrect. I have never had a vendetta against you, but I have consistently
sought an
apology and retraction from you that my wife is a sheep in the bed next to
me.

after I corrected him on a number of
technical matters,

Untrue. You have never corrected me on anything. True, you have disagreed,
but
that is not the same thing, and I have taken you to task over the personal
remarks
that you make when disagreeing.

I think the first was logs and the dB

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong in that. In electrical engineering,
the dB
is a unit-free expression of a power ratio.

and of course
there was DSP and his Big K nonsense.

There was no nonsense there, because all the texts, textbooks and URLs to
which I referred said that samplling was a simple multiplication of the
incoming
waveform by the Dirac Delta function, but without there being any factor to
deal
with the obvious anomaly that such a multiplication could only result in
infinitely
high samples. Later on, when working at a DSP company in Bath (picoChip, as
was)
I came across some training material which resolved that anomaly and which
satisfied ny curiosity. (For those interested, the extra factor which must
be included
is a Delta Funcion multiplied by the sampling interval, but that important
factor is missing
from several books on the subject. I suspect that none of the authors,
despite the great
advances they make in the application of DSP don't understand the anomaly,
and skip
over it quickly, probably cribbing off each other's texts)

When you subsequently claimed to have told me of that and were solicited for
the message id
or URL, you went strangely quiet on the matter.

He got even more riled

Untrue, I don't get riled, but you certainly do by this wall of text that
you are seeking
to discredit me.

Perhaps you have revealed more about your own character than you intended,
by
indicating your wish that we should become riled by yor goading?

when he tried
to play the degree card, suggesting only those with a degree should have a
Full Licence.

Sense of humour failure, there, I think, OM?

I'm not quite sure where that would leave his cronies,

Unlike you, with your apprentice in potty-mouthism, I have no cronies. My
opinions are my own. Had you not noticed that I chastised one of those whom
you say are my cronies for mouthing off infantile remarks in your style?

who
couldn't muster a degree between them.

You know nothing about them, for one has a degree in physics, another
a mature student's OU degree.

However, he didn't like being out
bid by someone with two degrees

Completely untrue. Your snobbish posturing about your two of everything,
degrees,
patios, and cars, to name just a few, makes you a source of fun. May I refer
you
to your comment above, "who couldn't muster a degree between them. "?

and his attempt at goading blew up in his
face.

One thing that I have never done in 20 years' of Usenet use is to goad
others,
as do you on a daily basis.

You can verify this in the archive

Untrue. There is no verification possible. HOWEVER, if you review Reay's
posts,
both in this NG and in uk.net.news.config over only the past 24 hours, you
can
see who it is that goads in extremis.

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
"gareth" wrote in
:

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

In thread after thrad after thread, many people have done exactly that,

Very few have done that, and I have consistently replied to those who
conduct
themselves in a mature and civilised manner, but not to those who are
gratuitlously rude
(as you are starting to be)

yet
you refuse to see it, and posy yet another thread insisting on having
discovered somethign new.

Not true. For those who are ignorant as to the truth of what I assert, I
posted
a URL from a learned professor with all the necessary background for them
to teach themselves. There's nothing new in established physics.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
In thread after thrad after thread, many people have done exactly that,
yet
you refuse to see it, and posy yet another thread insisting on having
discovered somethign new.

That is his standard ploy.

Untrue.


It allows him to drag the thread out.

Untrue. May I respectfully point out that in this case it is YOU who is
dragging
this thread out by your usual modus operandi of attempting to turn it into
a slanging match. but all that is happening is that I am playing the role
of the ever-patient kindergarten teacher dealing with your unduly and
disuptive
role as a petulant 5-year-old?

If he
acknowledged that his query had been addressed/theory disproved

Neither has happened, for in the discussion of the possible characteristics
of the
aether (correction to spelling after reading an Admiralty handbook) all
jumped
in with comments about antennae and not about the aether; and in the case of
short antennae, I refer you to the didactic URL at Texas University.


(and he may have to admit being wrong).


I have never had any difficulty in acknowledging when I am wrong, for that
is the
essence of the discussions that I start, which is to arrive at scientific
truth.


Even when, after years, he accepted that the standard approach to sampling
for DSP was valid, he insisted he had simply 'missed' a constant in the
standard formula

Untrue. i didn't miss a constant, but demanded that it be there when it was
not.

and therefore introduced another one to compensate.

I expplained that in my rejoinder to you of a few minutes ago.

The
problem is, the constant he claimed to have missed

Untrue. I didn't miss it because it's not there in the many tests on the
subject.
I said, quite rightly, that it should have been there, and dibbed it "Big
K", the
bigness because of the need to compress from the infinity of the Diracisn
down to
the real world of circuitry.

did not compensate for
the issue he had in mind.

As you never responded in a manner that suggested that you understood what
it was I
had in mind, I think that you are not well-equipped to make such an
assertion.

His 'excuse' merely dug his hole another few
meters down.

Untrue.

Again, all in the uk.r.a archive, as I expect he will deny it.

Untrue. There is nothing in the archive to support what you claim,and I
remind you that
when you claimed to have given me the solution and were challnged for the
URL
or message id, that you shut up llike a clam, as you will do so now.