On 15 Jul 2003 07:03:28 -0700, (Dr. Slick) wrote:

A strange mix of notions, some valid, others fanciful interpretation.

What do you mean by this? Can you explain yourself more? Or am i
confusing you?

Confused is a good word.

You might not, others would, and there is nothing "funny" going on in
the first place. As to "real" resistance, that is merely semantics
and does not illuminate just what you want to talk about.

I think it's "funny" that you can't give me your opinion on this.
I don't think you have one.

Confused Opinion being sought? Enough is provided.

This "resistive"
50 Ohms is really what people call the "radiation" resistance, which
is something of a misnomer again,

It is only a misnomer that you brought to the table. There is, by and
large, no antenna that is by nature 50Ohms in the first place, but
there are many antennas that have been cobbled together to present
50Ohms - not the same thing; but also hardly distinctive either,
except to the semanticist. Radiation resistance is NOT a function of
drive point impedance even if the two share the same value for some
obscure design.

This paragraph was written by someone who doesn't know what they
are saying AT ALL.
You clearly are way more confused than even me.

Again you have reversed the attribution. I am not the one seeking
"opinion."

"We?"

You presume MFJ is not completely inaccurate? That is a wordy long
way around the barn. And this is a function of "if you believe?" Why
not simply state what YOU believe and leave out the tea leaf reading?

Why not simply stop pretending you know what the hell i'm talking
about when you clearly don't!

An "MFJ is not completely inaccurate?" Now there is clear writing. I
think my statement was rather explicit. But if you need it restated,
I think you said it well enough yourself.


Theories abound and I have a 50Ohm dummy load that is fairly flat from
DC to 1GHz (confirmed by calibration to be less than 1:1.2 anywhere)
that I bought for $50. True, it is actually 52Ohms (the actual
standard of post WW2 Electronics), but its frequency characteristics
are just fine. More so than your experience in either obtaining
accuracy, or confirming it, or both.

How you make the leap to "radiation" resistance to make up the
difference in your observations is inventive, but not compelling; and
certainly lacks considerable discussion.

Discussion which you have not illuminated at all. I don't have a
high opinion of most HAM people, and you certainly fit the bill.

You cannot distinguish the specification of a Dummy Load being flat
over the frequency range of DC to 1MHz to within less than 1:1.2?
What opinions are you seeking of HAM people, the quality of bacon?

But some Hams like Roy actually know what they are talking about.
You certainly do not.

Now there is opinion I can recognize. ;-)

So, to respond directly to the subject:
50 Ohms "Real Resistive" impedance a Misnomer?
Yes, as the nominative you employ.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Stay out of discussions that go over your head.

Slick

Thanks but no thanks, OM. You certainly have a crappy dummy load you
may have confirmed through haphazard testing that you then rejected
with opinion and speculative theory. That quality was evident
throughout.

You also have a low threshold for your avowed mission to
light a brush-fire
As always, you have complete control in what you choose to write, and
you chose opinion over technical discussion. As far as opinion or
brush fires goes, you don't seem well suited for that either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC