On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:45:52 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
.. .

I am not convinced of that you know how to read at all.

So the answer is "no", you cannot verbalize the discussion in English.

Hi Dan,

This is, after all, a written communication. In English,
verbalization is an auditory utterance, which is completely impossible
to perceive in this forum. There are other meanings which allow for
you to be asking me to submit a script written entirely in verbs. I
don't think that would be any more productive. What I have written
certainly isn't in French (unless it would aid your comprehension).
Let's face it, you don't stand a chance in head-to-head competition
over deconstructing English.

I note you continue to assign me my response when what I've offered
does not fit the script. Emotion still dominates your forced logic
here. You might be surprised (and it surprises me if you are
surprised) to find few to none here would ever label me as being
unable to -um- verbalize.

I believe we are discussing the delay characteristic of current in a coil.

Would you be surprised if Cecil and Art diverged even at this point?
What would be the point of supporting them when they abandon you?

I dearly would like to see them sign on to the notion that a coil has
some inherent, fixed delay characteristic such as you describe (you
are describing that aren't you, now's the time to correct this mistake
of mine if I have made one).

I would assume if I
was as far off in what I think the topic is supposed to be, you or others
would have jumped in to tell me AND TOLD ME WHAT THE ACTUAL CONTROVERSY IS
ALL ABOUT.

As already having done that, what purpose would repeating it serve?
After all, if you once asked what my point was, and then you went on
to ignore my explicit answer, what faith would I have that even more
repetition would spare us?

IF I am guilty misunderstanding the nature of the controversy, you may not
believe this but it actually will not make me lose confidence in myself
(shudder).

Melodrama suitable for day-time TV now that the writers are on strike.

You are ready to throw me out of the sacred RRAA nesting
place?

Not me, you have to satisfy Art and Cecil. Do you really think you
are out of the woods with straining to explain what they have to
offer?

Frankly, Dan, you don't have the slightest understanding of what they
are talking about. Now, that is not a flame because no else does
either, and neither do they. If this was first principles from them
(or you), the thread would be only three postings long.

Just look at the single sentence of yours quoted above that survives
from my reflection of your question back to you. I see absolutely no
discussion of Cecil's centerpiece of Velocity Factor. You are
entirely silent when it comes to how the impedance discontinuity
between the coil and stinger contributes the rest of the 90 degrees of
electrical length. Dare you discuss how as long as the frequency is
kept constant, the VF and Z0 of coil stock will be relatively
constant? [This last quote drawn from Cecil is one of those zingers
that says nothing using a lot of words - if the frequency doesn't
change, wouldn't the frequency determinate characteristics stay the
same anyway?]

So, you misunderstand what this is all about? You haven't even
touched the surface! Basically, catch up, get a move on, or move
over, because this isn't a math problem. I invite you to flesh out
your explanation if you have more to offer than the stale 3.5nS myopic
target of opportunity. Proving Tom was/is/might be wrong there
doesn't change the basic flaw of this thread.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC