Message-ID: <000b01c470bd$80166e20$75540150@captbrian>
From: "captbrian" <captbrian@ukonline.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <01C470B0.228BAA70.actalbot@southsurf.com> <41010FB4.7010207@usa.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:01:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Loops v Verticals
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

I disagree. To the best of my knowledge the E-H antennas never demonstrated
anything more than one would expect from what they were.;  ie short
antennas with inductive  centre loading and capacitative end loading ..

They fitted normal theory quite well as did the ephemeral "fractal" antenna.

Bryan G3GVB


----- Original Message -----
From: Alberto di Bene <dibene@usa.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:16 PM
Subject: LF: Re: Loops v Verticals


> Andy wrote:
>
> >Well...
> >That may not always be the case.
> >
> >If experimentation disagrees with theory you need to check that
everything is
> >accounted for, before assuming the theory is wrong and reworking it.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> You just beated me in saying that. Look at the EH antenna, where a bunch
> of empirists pretend
> to rewrite the Maxwell's equations, on the basis of "a new theory of the
> electromagnetic field",
> which, unfortunately, noone of them has been able to put on paper using
> the language of
> science, mathematics.
>
> 73  Alberto  I2PHD
>
>
>
>
>
>