As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation
of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the
Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere.

Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere
affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae,
and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators
compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of
a wavelength?

I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met
by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question
of interest to me, and not a troll.

gareth wrote:

As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation
of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the
Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere.

Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere
affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae,
and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators
compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of
a wavelength?

I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met
by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question
of interest to me, and not a troll.

Assuming your house does not glow in the dark as result of a local
source of ionisiing radiation I think it is safe to say that the
atmosphere will have a negligible affect on the electrical (as opposed
to mechanical) properties of your aerials.

--

Roger Hayter

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation
of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the
Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere.

Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere
affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae,
and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators
compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of
a wavelength?

No.

It is easily shown by a little analysis that electrically short
antennas are "poor radiators" because of their low input impedance
and all the losses associated with feeding that low impedance from
a real world source.


--
Jim Pennino

En el artículo ,
escribió:

a real world source.

I'm afraid the OP has problems with the concept of a "real world".

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

"gareth" wrote in message
...
As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation
of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the
Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere.

Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same
atmosphere
affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae,
and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators
compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of
a wavelength?

I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met
by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question
of interest to me, and not a troll.

Were the chorus of replies to relate to the low radiation resistance, then
then it raises the question of WHY is the radiation resistance low?

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:58:11 +0000, gareth wrote:



I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met by the
hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question of interest to me,
and not a troll.

Were the chorus of replies to relate to the low radiation resistance,
then then it raises the question of WHY is the radiation resistance low?

I don't think that bait will catch many fish, you have already had
perfectly sensible answers to this question. You could try a web forum
but then they wouldn't allow you to hurl abuse at people who gave you
answers you didn't like.

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation
of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the
Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere.

Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same
atmosphere
affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae,
and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators
compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of
a wavelength?

I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met
by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question
of interest to me, and not a troll.

Were the chorus of replies to relate to the low radiation resistance, then
then it raises the question of WHY is the radiation resistance low?

Been explained many times.

Refer to any text on electromagetics if you need a refresher.


--
Jim Pennino

"gareth" wrote in message ...

As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation
of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the
Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere.

Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same atmosphere
affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae,
and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators
compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of
a wavelength?

I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met
by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question
of interest to me, and not a troll.
=================================================
I doubt if distant conditions affect the origin. Does the archer's bow
"know" whether the arrow will be striking the target or landing in the dirt
150 feet beyond?

I am only a talented amateur but I think with an antenna, the wavelength is
best matched by the antenna aperture. This is not the case with short
antennas.

What do you think?

"Sal"

"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ...
As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation
of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the
Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere.
Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same
atmosphere
affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae,
and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators
compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of
a wavelength?

I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met
by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question
of interest to me, and not a troll.
=================================================
I doubt if distant conditions affect the origin.

I intended the atmosphere immediately adjacent to the antennae.

I am only a talented amateur but I think with an antenna, the wavelength
is best matched by the antenna aperture. This is not the case with short
antennas.
What do you think?

The standing wave caused by reflection from the open end of a short antenna
will not cover a full quarter cycle, and therefore the radiation must be
reduced
accordingly.

But that fits in with my opinion that the atmosphere / environment/
lumeniferous aether / or
whatever needs in some way to be excited or twisted by the EM field of the
antenna, hence
my suggestion that you quoted above.

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ...
As we all know, the atmosphere greatly affects the propagation
of radio waves, with all the various layers, and the effect of the
Sun and sunspots on propagation through the atmosphere.
Is it therefore not beyond the bounds possibility that this same
atmosphere
affects the initial propagation of radio waves away from our antennae,
and that somehow is the reason why short antennae are poor radiators
compared to antennae of significant (1/4 lambda) fractions of
a wavelength?

I know that I have attempted to discuss this before and been met
by the hidebound rednecks of Yankland, but it is a question
of interest to me, and not a troll.
=================================================
I doubt if distant conditions affect the origin.

I intended the atmosphere immediately adjacent to the antennae.

I am only a talented amateur but I think with an antenna, the wavelength
is best matched by the antenna aperture. This is not the case with short
antennas.
What do you think?

The standing wave caused by reflection from the open end of a short antenna
will not cover a full quarter cycle, and therefore the radiation must be
reduced
accordingly.

Nope, and easily shown to be false.

But that fits in with my opinion that the atmosphere / environment/
lumeniferous aether / or
whatever needs in some way to be excited or twisted by the EM field of the
antenna, hence
my suggestion that you quoted above.

Your opinion was disproved about 100 years ago.


--
Jim Pennino