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