MSGID: <10ihh62$1bidi$2@dont-email.me> 0f6186c5
REPLY: <20251224170018.8e9d5bbfa5dd03c5b719cba7@127.0.0.1> f32dc387
PID: PyGate 1.5.2
TID: PyGate/Linux 1.5.2
CHRS: ASCII 1
TZUTC: 0000
REPLYADDR tnp@invalid.invalid
REPLYTO 3:633/10 UUCP
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)


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
 * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
SEEN-BY: 105/81 106/201 128/187 129/14 305 153/7715 154/110 218/700
SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/110 112 134 200 206 300 317 400 426 428
SEEN-BY: 229/470 616 664 700 705 266/512 291/111 292/854 320/219 322/757
SEEN-BY: 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/10 280 414 418 420 422 509 2744
SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/1 902/26 2320/105 5020/400 5075/35
PATH: 633/10 280 229/426