<better snip that longness>
Unfortunately I think I can understand it (I have oft wondered if it's like the way drunk people at parties appear drunk and silly when you're sober, but completely normal if you're not - I can only assume it also applies for madness).
The lack of difference between a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna occurs in full duplex operation. In that instance the same antenna in the same location and at the same time transmits and receives something which isn't its own signal. Because an antenna is indistinguishable from itself in this situation, despite the fact it is doing 2 different things at once, it can't be said it is different from itself. Most cellphones are full duplex (transmit and receive at the same time), AFAIK it is only 2G GSM and so-called "TDMA" that operate in a TDMA mode (nodes do alternate transmit and receive separated in time). Single-antenna radar is an example of where the transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna are different, even though they are the same; at one point in time it transmits, later on it receives. There is no physical change needed for this difference to manifest - the antenna is otherwise the same, and shares the same resonance frequency and stuff (in this sense by same I mean not different). If the same type of antenna is transmitting in one location and receiving in another, then yes the difference is some number of km or other arbitrary distance (also of course another difference exists, being that the antennas are different ones because they are not the same antenna). But the exact same differences exist between 2 such antennas that are both transmitting, or both receiving, or just sitting there doing something like nothing, or collecting rain drops, bird drops, who knows.
But in that latter combination (Tx something=nothing, Rx something=nothing), old cans of Bud Light will perform admirably at any distance (whether modified to be cantennae or not). Similar to if I wanted to take part in a speed typing competition but chose to abstain as the winning strategum, then I could cut the lids off, cram my hands in there (carefully), and achieve the same wpm of 0 (or perhaps 1, depending on the size of the backspace key, and whether and where I emptied them first) as trying to do my clattery-mashey-shortey best. But I see your point, in that you are talking about Tx and Rx being involved in the same communication, and thus part of an interdependent system where we are trying to tease apart effects which can occur on transmission and reception and even some sort of intermediate field / X-ton tennis fixture / aetheirc medium.
On the other hand (either, as both have cans), whenever I made the same kind of silly pedantic arguments thinking I was being clever, it never worked out well because it left me looking like a nut. Refer to this post if you’re not already reading it now for a good example.
Still, it's possibly the most sense you have made so far, because it shows you are thinking from first principles and a crystal of logic is forming, even if it redissolves.
Of your rain options, the correct ones by conventional theory and knowledge are "IS IS" and "AINT AINT". I'd say in equal proportion, because evidence can't determine what counts as subjectively significant affect (but some people turn to counting Google hits for this data). Conventional theory and measurement does not know of IS/AINT and AINT/IS. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That rules out 2 of 4 differences, leaving 2 differences which are the same, in turn leaving 1 difference, which can't be different from itself, so there are really 0 differences. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. Logic 101 (I reversed the order of the digits to make it more mysterious and "mine").
I learnt what gibbers are though.
No, I didn't say "that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %", I was talking about the (happy) frequency you wished I had referred to. In that wetantennas article, something like the peak in Q changes from (for DL6WU 12 vs DL6WU 12 (wet)) 153MHz to 150.5MHz which is a 1.6% drop in frequency. So I was "referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers". I thought by using the word "detune" after you had spoken of "frequency", might lend you to understand something along the lines of tuning a radio across the dial, rather than putting a Tesla on a dyno to eke out the last bit of power from the aftermarket turbo you had fitted. I forgot about RCB (rampant confirmation bias).
Um bored now. That would be a mic drop but I already lost it about the same time I spewed down my own shirt and fell into the front row of the crowd. It's been a terrible show.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
