RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 11th 03, 06:15 PM

On 11 Oct 2003 08:55:23 -0700, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On 10 Oct 2003 19:55:02 -0700, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

I then reason that with energy being applied to the loop it will also
create oscillation

Hi Art,

The term is resonation, not oscillation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, At my stage of life where death would beat a formal education

Art, your correspondence here in this group has eclipsed the time
necessary for the term of study for a B.S.E.E. Using the crutch of
death to escape learning for such a length of time becomes wearing.

one must resort to individual thinking,after all the exclamation of
Eureka came from a man in a bath and not from a studying classroom tho
the latter is a more consistant way to succecces.

Strange you should offer a quote from one of history's greatest
educators to propound turning from studying in a classroom (which was
at that time quite rare, but education proceeded nonetheless).

There in my case is
it not unexpected that
reasoning and thus nomenclature would be different from the regimented
norm.

You are not alone in that respect. Many correspondents learn the
significance of their errors here daily.

You may remember that I once referred to radio waves as pulses
( it generated mirth) because I saw the current curve as starting from
zero and ending at zero where the regimented term that the current
goes THRU zero and thus is a wave. I submit that both are correct.

This is simply your insistence on maintaining a vulgar usage in the
face of appropriate usage. To that, the willful refusal to employ
accepted terms is more the quality of a rebellious teenager than a new
Edison.

If one does not strive to understand INTENT then learning and
understanding is thrown away in favour of debate.

Art, you shrink from the word debate due to your own insecurity, not
from its inherent evil that spoils learning. Certainly there are many
here that gust on in narcissistic arguments but that hardly qualifies
as debate and rather debases its goal. Call those pundits' activities
"discussions" instead as they rise neither to scholarly work nor
technical activity. You at least know which end of the soldering iron
to pick up; they often couldn't recognize which side of their credit
card displays their signature.

A similar aproach was taken when I tried to describe my antenna
which is nothing more than a T section plus tuner but engineered
backward
to form a number of complex circuits where lumped circuits
can be divided up into lumped and distributed components
and thus negate the need for a serparate tuner while attaining high
radiation efficiency, this again is an example of individual thinking
and
manipulating the known via unconventional thinking which was thrown
out by those educated under the normal format.

What you describe above was commonplace a century ago when it was
novel. You have been offered any number of writers from that day and
age in an aid to further your understanding of the fundamentals of
their working relationships and the terms commonly employed to
describe them.

Here's an example from the 1907 "Standard Handbook for Electrical
Engineers":
Sec 21, Radiotelegraphy, part 279, Method of Exciting the Antenna"
"The antenna is usually excited by a closed circuit composed of
inductance and capacity to which it is coupled either inductively
or directly (fig. 75 and 76)"
at this point I should relate to all that these figures display
EXACTLY what you have described.

and different nomenclature which thru out understandings and evolved
into debate. So yes, my terms may be different but thinking and
understanding
should not be thrown out because of lack of conformity.
So I must ask you to give some leeway to me and strive to
understand intent
Regards
Art

Hi Art,

What you describe as "understanding intent" is not at issue here
because few mistake what you describe. It is quite commonplace where
the only unique contribution is in your corruption of terms.
Absolutely every posting in response to you has been to respond to
this poor usage you embrace as invention. To summon up an analogy,
calling a dripping faucet the source of wave emanations does not
reduce the water bill, nor offer the prospects of the world rushing to
the inventor-of-the-age's door to obtain license agreements.

With all this aside, what you describe is not oscillation. Further,
if we simply abandoned that discussion, what you describe is hardly
novel. Discarding that, what you describe is not particularly more
effective nor more efficient compared to simpler constructions.
Ignoring that, no one here is rejecting your message because it goes
counter to convention - it in fact supports long standing convention,
however you appear to be the last to be aware of that.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC