View Single Post
  #93   Report Post  
Old August 14th 03, 09:55 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Aug 2003 13:17:40 -0700, (Tom Bruhns) wrote:

Richard,

Thank you very much for posting that reference to John Juroshek's
article. It happens to cover a topic very near and dear to my heart,
and I called John and we had a nice chat about it. In addition, I
told him where I saw the reference, and asked him if he would say that
the SWR on a line, in steady state excitation, with a source at one
end and a load at the other, depended on the source's source
impedance. He said it of course does not, and cannot understand how
you would have interpreted it that way.

Should I check with any of the other authors?

Cheers,
Tom


Hi Tom,

Feel free to do that. I cannot imagine I hold sway over that anyway.
Do you really need more proof, or is your question an honest enquiry
suggesting you accept the possibility that someone else may actually
stand with me?

You among the many have done more in less time. I can accept
negative, informed response. Can he explain my posting? That is the
more telling as it is MY statement, not your summary of it.

I am not looking to shift the goal posts during the game, the posting
contains the beginning and end of it. It stands alone, or it falls
because of its own errors, not those appended, removed, remodeled,
explained, or fancified through specious "debate." I find more
entertainment in bearding the complacency it meets.

I have seen my results dismissed. I hardly find it surprising, but
with repetition it seems those in chant mode are insecure with their
mantra. After all what purpose is there in saying it twice in a round
of three postings? (or 3 of 5, or 5 of 7....).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC