Re: Antenna physical size
- From: "Dave" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:45:05 GMT
"Art Unwin" <ArthurUnwin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a0b4a425-5987-40e5-a42d-e7dacb65121f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 7, 2:08 pm, richardharri...@xxxxxxxxx (Richard Harrison) wrote:
I disagree. Laws written are all based on the assumption of
equilibrium and that includes
Maxwell's laws. These laws hav e zero refernce to size as such though
many would seek
because contrary to what those male enhancement product adds tell you, size
doesn't matter.
for the word volume. Pertinent factors are wave length of frequency in
The problem here is that amateur radio is wellded to the yagi design
which is not one of equilibrium
WAIT JUST ONE GOSH DARN MINUTE! you have said in the past that the simple
half wave dipole WAS a prefect example of equilibrium! NOW it isn't???
have you had a new revelation while i had your old email address plonked??
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Antenna physical size
- From: Art Unwin
- Re: Antenna physical size
- References:
- Antenna physical size
- From: ArthurUnwin
- Re: Antenna physical size
- From: Richard Harrison
- Re: Antenna physical size
- From: Art Unwin
- Antenna physical size
- Prev by Date: Re: The Rest of the Story
- Next by Date: Re: The Rest of the Story
- Previous by thread: Re: Antenna physical size
- Next by thread: Re: Antenna physical size
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
