Roy Lewallen wrote:

No, Cecil, I'll give the money to anyone who _shows_ that Yuri made the
correct prediction, not someone who just says he did.

That 5% prediction was within your measurement accuracy which you
quoted earlier.

The result of the first test (about 18 degrees equivalent antenna
"replacement") was 3.1% reduction, with no phase shift, output to input.

You keep talking about the phase shift of the NET current. That is
NOT what was being discussed. The phase shift that Yuri and I were
talking about is the phase shift of the component forward and reflected
waves. Because of your lack of comprehension, YOU MEASURED THE WRONG
FRIGGIN' CURRENT!!! You cannot be allowed to make a stupid mistake like
that and then try to turn it into an advantage for you. It is a no-
brainer to predict that there's no phase shift in the NET current since
the forward and reflected currents are approximately the same magnitude
and rotating in opposite directions. My web page explains it all.

For that test, Yuri predicted 5% or 2.5% with 18 degrees of phase shift.
See the direct quotes I just posted for evidence. For the second test,
with 33 degrees of a more ideal antenna "replaced", Yuri made no
prediction, and the result was 5.4% and no phase shift. The "theory" you
and Yuri are fond of, and which you thoughtfully again show in your
posting, predicts 16+%.

5% equals a phase shift of 18 degrees. 3% equals a phase shift of 14 degrees.
Why can't you get that through your head? Our predictions were, no doubt,
within your measurement accuracy.

ArcCos(0.95) = 18 degrees ArcCos(0.97) = 14 degrees

Do you really think we're dumb enough not to notice you're using the
"replacement" length from the first test to calculate the result from
the second test, then crying "Aha!"? That you're completely ignoring the
results from the second test and what your favorite equation would predict?

You obviously still don't comprehend. The phase shift is a *calculated*
value based on the current ratio. If you had bothered to read my web page,
you wouldn't be so ignorant of what I have been saying. "Replacement"
length does not appear anywhere in my equations and is irrelevant to
those equations. You remind me of the guy who got extremely angry when
he thought someone had stolen his expensive sunglasses only to discover
them on his own head. When (and if) you comprehend the error of your ways,
I expect an apology.

A predicted current difference of 5% equals a phase shift of 18 degrees
in both the forward and reflected currents. According to the laws of
physics, it cannot be anything else, given the assumptions. You cannot
have a current difference of 5% and zero phase shift in the forward
current. That's technically impossible but you didn't even recognize it.

A predicted current difference of 3% equals a phase shift of 14 degrees
in both the forward and reflected currents.

Present evidence (you do understand the concept, don't you?) that Yuri
-- or you -- correctly predicted the result of either test before the
test result was posted, by giving the date and quote, and the money's
yours.

You have already admitted the estimate was close. A 5% prediction
corresponds to a phase shift of 18 degrees. A 3% prediction corresponds
to a phase shift of 14 degrees. Your lack of comprehension is no excuse
for you welching on your bet.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----