XPost: comp.os.linux.misc   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 24/12/2025 17:00, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   > On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 14:23:45 +0000   
   > The Natural Philosopher  wrote:   
   >   
   > []   
   >> What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able to   
   >> design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted.   
   >>   
   >> I am not advocating Pringle cans.  I wouldnt use one myself. But I am   
   >> not so quick to rubbish them as you are.   
   >>   
   >> RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value   
   >> often have enormous effects.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > Prsumably you're saying Mythbusters-style "not proven"?   
   >   
   >   
   I am saying that a blanket denial 'because the theory says no' is not   
   good enough for me, personally.   
      
   To make a waveguide, which is analysable, is quite tricky. To throw   
   something in place that 'does something' and clearly is *not* a   
   waveguide, and is essentially unanalysable, is another matter.   
      
   With Gigahertz, as with Heffalumps, you never know...   
   >   
      
   --   
   If I had all the money I've spent on drink...   
   ..I'd spend it on drink.   
      
   Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)