Richard, that was a darned good response, clear and to the point,
Makes me feel a bit silly.
Actually Richard this same question has been bothering me for some
time in my modeling,
As you know I am dealing with coupling of radiated circuits. I know
you are not in agreement in what I am doing but that is not important
at this time.
When I realised that one cannot get the Q that one desires it was
really brought home to me what many had said to me about top band and
low efficiencies.
Not only have I had it brought home to me that there is more to an
inductance than I realised but also the difficulties of modeling its
many facets.
The last month or so I have modeled and remodeled my coupling inductor
not only by splitting it up into more than one but also spacing them
out so they represent the actual inductance length plus making the
diameter of those element segments the same as the coil diameter, all
these present different efficiencies tho not by very much . But then
the bandwidth on the model
is much narrower that the actual antenna!. My first reaction is that
the coil is more lossier than the model shows but what it really shows
is that the program can't handle inductances to my satisfaction thus
for me this thread is enlarging my education. So your comments are
very welcome.
Regards
Art


yRichard Clark wrote in message . ..
On 13 Nov 2003 08:56:04 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

Richard,
You have written quite extensively on this thread, a lot of it being
comments that I just dont understand.

It would help you, me, and the rest if you simply asked each time that
occurs.

I posted 11 times to Yuri's thread of 183
I posted ONCE to Roy's thread of 103
I posted 5 (now 6) times to this

You've posted 8 times total among them - you know, that still leaves
something like 300 postings, 90%, by others (and among not too many
different individuals). I can certainly offer that my writing has
more impact, but hardly as much tonnage. YMMV

If you don't like the way it is
going or the people involved are not coming to you' as is their job,
to present absolute proof then why bother with these people or the
thread.

You might as well ask those who live in pollution why they don't
simply stop breathing.

Can't you bend just a bit and go with the flow when unsurmountable
proof is not presented to you first, which you say is everybodies job.

With 80% of the weather vanes already turned into the wind, why would
I want to do that? Art you pine for a more soothed and tranquil
passage across what is in fact a stormy sea.

Didn't you yourself invite me to
participate ? If so you must certainly had some interest in what the
lesser people were saying.

You focus too much on these herculean threads and it would behoove you
to participate outside of them (and I will offer that you already
have). The majority of my correspondence is in fact with those asking
questions that these titans have disdained from answering:
Parasitic Question...
Hints for a quasi professional cage...
Penn state fractal...
dielectric antennas...
OCF Dipole...
ant coupler and silver mica...
Magloop woes
1.2 GHz antennas...
Device by an antenna...
to trust which SWR meter...
in the last week alone. Do you see any insistence by me for absolute
accuracy, or demands for proofs in those? No, Art, I reserve that for
those who are too lame to defend outrageous claims. None of the
topics above qualify in that regard. Well maybe one inflated soul,
perhaps. A guy with 9 actual out of 12 patents claimed - should I put
on a happy face and simply offered "Bravo! 9 out of 12 is good
enough"? People like that inflated the stock bubble of 2000.

To put it simply, if you lay it out as a fact, I will test it as a
fact. If you lay it out as an idea, then there is something to listen
to. I can let ideas pass on their own merit, but facts have a status
that require validation. If you want an idea validated, that requires
the assistance of psychiatry or religion because you are mixing faith
and science inappropriately. If you want to argue faith and/or
science, it belongs in the Racist and Democracy threads that I eschew.

I will admit I love kicking out the crutches of cripples who are
obvious charlatans. In my youth I walked past too many street urchins
begging for spare change (called flower children then) who are now
robbing companies of earnings as CEO's (they were flower children
because what change they couldn't scrabble up for dope, they could
call home for from Daddy-kins, or Mummy-kins to help bail them out).

This simply means I can tell (as many can, it is no great talent) the
difference between an honest call for help, and a fool's mission.
Long threads such as this and others contain no more than 20% real
content. When I have responded to that, the remainder begs for
entertainment critiques (generally very poor material and easily
mocked). As a benefit, my critiques are far more entertaining too.

Roy's separate thread started out shame-based, I recognized it from
the start because I can do it so much better, and have. It deserved
only one comment from me because it was lost from the beginning. That
it ran to some 100+ postings proves its lack of material and its girth
of ego. My own shame-based topics have run to less postings than the
total of Roy's tap dancing. The only difference is my ego requires
less from me, and is satisfied with the silence of others humbled by
their poverty of refute. ;-)

Why not look at the possitives presented and put aside attempts to
deflate
or deride honest attempts to explain. You are apparently a computor
expert so why not derive a system where a inductance is transfered to
a system that can easily be modeled since there seems to be some
interest in the matter and you would good chance of becoming a hero
to all.

Both Roy and I offered a protocol to do just that - BEFORE these 300+
postings! You simply have to read Yuri's page to observe it, and how
it is accomplished. Then ask yourself, what quality of discussion
from 300+ posts in its complete indifference could be called
meritorious?

Still your friend and hanging on
Art

Hi Art,

Probably more that what you wanted to know. All part of my service in
providing entertainment analysis and criticism when no data is offered
and no principles of science are being tested. As to your comment of
my becoming a hero to all - not the model I aspire to at all.

Heros, in literature and legend, either die in the last act, or are
insipid and overwhelmingly dull individuals. I am content to allow
for 100 Heroes to rise here in my place. :-)

What I am is a triple threat. I know the material, I can write, and I
don't give a damn (which is to say, I don't care if I'm wrong, because
I can change that by anyone proving it).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC