Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
Chuckle.

I'm continually amazed at how different our backgrounds are. Whenever
I've encountered a complex system I don't understand, I try to begin
with a simple system, to make sure I understand it first. Only after I
know how a simple one will behave do I have a chance of understanding
the more complex one. This is the method adopted by virtually all the
capable engineers I've had the pleasure to work with over the years.

In contrast, complexity is embraced by people who have a need to conceal
a lack of understanding. By resisting simplification and constantly
pleading that the system is too complex to analyze, fundamental
understanding isn't required, and one can never be shown to be wrong. If
the best you can do in any case is to give vague answers and wave hands,
it doesn't really make any difference whether you understand it or not
-- it's impossible to tell. On the other hand, if it's necessary to
actually calculate values (as I've had to do for years as a design
engineer) and truly understand what's happening, there's no way I'll be
able to do it for a complex system if I can't even do it for a simple one.

As for standing to be wrong, I'm willing to post my measurements and my
predictions, and be wrong. So far, only Yuri has joined me.

And, Art, I'm surprised at your objecting to my bringing up the dreaded
complexity of -- gasp -- phase. You should rejoice, because it gives me
twice the opportunity to show just how wrong I am.

From my point of view you are rarely wrong and should be admired on
how knoweledgable you have become despite insurmountable hardships
that
make mine a a Sunday morning walk despite the war.
I agreed with your posting regarding an inductance but then realised
that Yuri was talking about what is really a network and thus he could
take measurements.
Now I am hoping that Yuri will get a true explanation of what he has
observed
which in the real world is a circuit containing capacitance,resistance
and inductance and where he is unable to separate the parts as you are
doing on
paper.
From an engineering stand point I am not willing to discard
fundamentals as you would suggest as their use provides solutions even
to one such as I who wasted my younger year by not going to school. My
point is that you are playing with Yuri because he used the term
inductance instead of a circuit which would then
prevented your present tack.
For some reason you take offense at that suggestion given in the
starting
post nd I really do not know why until you come up with an explosive
point..
Regards
Art



If the small inductor
shows a measureable phase shift from input to output, I'll be just as
wrong as I'll be if it shows a magnitude change. So I've doubled the
odds I'll fall on my face. At the same time, it puts Cecil at no extra
risk at all, since he won't venture a prediction of either magnitude or
phase, and I feel confident in my assumption that you won't, either. I'm
the only one (except Yuri, who has bravely given a range of magnitude
values at least) who *can* be wrong, and including phase makes it all
the more likely. Surely, that should cheer you up a bit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:

Is not the group straying somewhat from the initial discussion
on E ham? That discussion that started all this was with regard to a
whip antenna and the coil on it. Why has the discussion been pulled
away from the original coil to a torroid of all things ?


Because someone can't stand to be wrong?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP