Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Dr. Slick wrote:
Cecil, when are you gonna come out with your 2+2=4 dissertation?

I already did. 2 amps added in phase with 2 amps equals 4 amps flowing
in the same direction. Some people say that 4 amps stands still. Do
you think current can stand still?


The other poster is right. Hint: dQ/dt=current flow. That's the
number of Coulombs that passes a particular plane in a unit of time,
usually seconds.

Hint: In a standing wave ratio, there is still the flow of
coulombs, but it's more like they are sloshing back and forth (AC)
between the high voltage nodes.

But if you measure the _DC_ current at a high voltage node, you
will see that there is none.

But Jesus, you argued about this for a million posts in the past.

Can't you maybe up the complexity to something like 2x3=6?

God, i wonder how long you could argue about that one!


Slick

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
That means when you look at the voltage waveform
across a one ohm resistor, you are also looking at the current
waveform.

Please give an example of when the voltage waveform across a resistor is
*not* due to the current flowing through the resistor.

73, Jim AC6XG

Tdonaly wrote:
You're the victim of sloppy thinking and theorizing, Cecil.

OK, Tom, let's see if you are right. At a point on a transmission line,
the current waveform from a calibrated pickup coil is sinusoidal with
a maximum amplitude of one amp. Are there any standing waves on that
transmission line? With your vast knowledge, you should be able to
answer the question.
--
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! =-----

Dr. Slick wrote:
Hint: In a standing wave ratio, there is still the flow of
coulombs, but it's more like they are sloshing back and forth (AC)
between the high voltage nodes.

Uhhhhh Slick, with coulombs sloshing back and forth in an RF environment,
dQ/dt is a sine wave.
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
That means when you look at the voltage waveform
across a one ohm resistor, you are also looking at the current
waveform.

Please give an example of when the voltage waveform across a resistor is
*not* due to the current flowing through the resistor.

That's the guys on the other side of the argument, Jim, who say coulombs
are sloshing back and forth through that resistor but there is no current.
--
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! =-----

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cecil Moore"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 9:16 PM
Subject: Semantic Nonsense

I already did. 2 amps added in phase with 2 amps equals 4 amps flowing
in the same direction.

You mean both directions. AC doesn't flow in just one direction. That
would be DC.

Some people say that 4 amps stands still.

And one even says that AC moves in one direction. Isn't that silly? :-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

From: "Cecil Moore"
2 amps added in phase with 2 amps equals 4 amps flowing
in the same direction.

You mean both directions. AC doesn't flow in just one direction. That
would be DC.

Instantaneous, Jim, instantaneous. AC flows in one direction for 1/2 cycle
and flows in the opposite direction for the other 1/2 cycle. A 2 amp phasor
at zero degrees added to a 2 amp phasor at zero degrees equals 4 amps at
zero degrees, flowing in the same instantaneous direction as the instantaneous
phasor components. When the two component phasors are at 180 degrees, they
and their sum are flowing in the opposite direction.
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Dr. Slick wrote:
Hint: In a standing wave ratio, there is still the flow of
coulombs, but it's more like they are sloshing back and forth (AC)
between the high voltage nodes.

Uhhhhh Slick, with coulombs sloshing back and forth in an RF environment,
dQ/dt is a sine wave.


Errr, Cecil, dQ/dt is zero at the voltage nodes.

Hint: Just like the jump rope doesn't move at the ends...


Slick

Dr. Slick wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Uhhhhh Slick, with coulombs sloshing back and forth in an RF environment,
dQ/dt is a sine wave.

Errr, Cecil, dQ/dt is zero at the voltage nodes.

Nope, not over half a cycle, it isn't (starting at the zero crossing).

Let me get this straight: You are given an instrument for measuring RF
current on a transmission line and the task of measuring current at
a particular point. You measure one amp. Are you telling me you don't
know if that measurement is current or not? If it's at a voltage node,
it's not current????????????? Get real!
--
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! =-----

Dr. Slick wrote:
"Err, Cecil, dQ/dt is zero at the voltage nodes."

dQ/dt is the rate of change in electrical charge with respect to time.

Charge moves in synch the applied voltage in a resistance. So, a
sinusoidal voltage node is a point in the cycle where the voltage has
zero amplitude, and so does the current. dQ/dt is hardly zero at zero
crossings of the a-c waveform.

A standing wave node is different. The voltage is always zero at a
complete cancellation type standing wave node because at all points in
the cycle the voltage sum is zero if the node voltage is composed of
equal and oppositely phased waves. The nodal point is a minimum but is
not nescessarily a zero point if the reflected wave is not the equal of
the incident wave.

In the sinewave cycle, zero amplitude occurs at zero crossing points in
time. The rate of change, or slope of the a-c charge movement line is
maximum at zero-crossings, i.e., the change in movement of charges is
most at zero-crossings.

At positive and negative peaks of the sinewave, the slope is zero.

Cecil wrote:
"Nope, not over half a cycle, it isn`t (starting at the zero crossing)."

Cecil is getting at the effective value of an a-c waveform which is rms.

Slick and Cecil are talking about two different things.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil is getting at the effective value of an a-c waveform which is rms.
Slick and Cecil are talking about two different things.

I was a little sleepy when I wrote that. It didn't occur to me until
later that Slick can also use dQ/dt = 0 over a complete cycle to prove
that the average value of any AC current is zero, not just at a voltage
node. Hence the necessity for RMS values for AC.

If Slick can tell a forward wave from a traveling wave by taking one and
only one current measurement at one point on a transmission line, and
knowing nothing else about the system, he is a better man than I.
--
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! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
The net current is the phasor sum of the forward and reflected
currents.

...

they are flowing
in opposite directions

Uh-Huh

Now you are resorting to selective editing to completely change the
meaning. Tsk, Tsk, Richard. I can do the same thing by editing out
every "not" in your postings and replacing it by '...'.
--
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! =-----

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:01:34 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
The net current is the phasor sum of the forward and reflected
currents.

...

they are flowing
in opposite directions

Uh-Huh

Now you are resorting to selective editing to completely change the
meaning. Tsk, Tsk, Richard. I can do the same thing by editing out
every "not" in your postings and replacing it by '...'.
I noticed you do not retract your statement but whine about analysis
Tsk, Tsk

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

From: "Cecil Moore"
2 amps added in phase with 2 amps equals 4 amps flowing
in the same direction.

You mean both directions. AC doesn't flow in just one direction. That
would be DC.

Instantaneous, Jim, instantaneous.

You say that as if you understood what it means. :-)

AC flows in one direction for 1/2 cycle
and flows in the opposite direction for the other 1/2 cycle.

Oh. I always thought it was the other way around. :-)

A 2 amp phasor
at zero degrees added to a 2 amp phasor at zero degrees equals 4 amps at
zero degrees, flowing in the same instantaneous direction as the instantaneous
phasor components. When the two component phasors are at 180 degrees, they
and their sum are flowing in the opposite direction.

So what?

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:

Here's what the standing
wave current looks like when it is not frozen in time. That's the topic of
discussion that everyone seems to want to avoid. Standing waves don't stand
still. They probably should have been called "looping waves".

http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/HTMs...newave2EX.html

I guess that kind of thing can be exciting for the unitiated. Good for
you, Cecil!

73, Jim AC6XG

Richard Clark wrote:
I noticed you do not retract your statement but whine about analysis
Tsk, Tsk

Nothing to retract, Richard. The direction of AC current flow is merely
a convention. In a balanced transmission line system, if the differential
current is flowing toward the load in one wire, it is flowing away from
the load in the other wire. Otherwise, it would be common-mode current.
At certain times during the RF cycle, the forward current phasor and the
reflected current phasor in one wire are both pointed toward the load.
In the other wire, they are pointed toward the source. 1/2 cycle later,
things are reversed.

Draw a DC circuit with a battery and a load. In one wire, the load
current is flowing toward the load. In the other wire, the load current
is flowing away from the load toward the battery. So we reference the
wire connected to the '+' battery terminal which is carrying the current toward
the load and call the other wire a return path. But balanced AC has no such
distinction. There is no positive terminal or negative terminal on the
AC generator except by convention. Incidentally, Edison shared your
confusion.

Taking the RF generator as the reference, a freeze-frame snapshot of the
RF current maximum points up and down a matched balanced transmission line
may result in:

------------------------------------------
Source Load
------------------------------------------
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
A 2 amp phasor
at zero degrees added to a 2 amp phasor at zero degrees equals 4 amps at
zero degrees, flowing in the same instantaneous direction as the instantaneous
phasor components. When the two component phasors are at 180 degrees, they
and their sum are flowing in the opposite direction.

So what?

So sometimes those two phasors are forward current and reflected current
flowing in opposite directions. The statement is still true. Think about
that for awhile.
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Here's what the standing
wave current looks like when it is not frozen in time. That's the topic of
discussion that everyone seems to want to avoid. Standing waves don't stand
still. They probably should have been called "looping waves".

http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/HTMs...newave2EX.html

I guess that kind of thing can be exciting for the unitiated. Good for
you, Cecil!

So much for some people I know who assert, "Standing waves don't move." :-)
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
A 2 amp phasor
at zero degrees added to a 2 amp phasor at zero degrees equals 4 amps at
zero degrees, flowing in the same instantaneous direction as the instantaneous
phasor components. When the two component phasors are at 180 degrees, they
and their sum are flowing in the opposite direction.

So what?

So sometimes those two phasors are forward current and reflected current
flowing in opposite directions. The statement is still true. Think about
that for awhile.

If I didn't understand the difference between the instantaneous value of
an alternating current, and the direction of propagation of a wave, who
knows what I might come up with given these details. I might even come
up with a notion like yours! ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Here's what the standing
wave current looks like when it is not frozen in time. That's the topic of
discussion that everyone seems to want to avoid. Standing waves don't stand
still. They probably should have been called "looping waves".

http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/HTMs...newave2EX.html

I guess that kind of thing can be exciting for the unitiated. Good for
you, Cecil!

So much for some people I know who assert, "Standing waves don't move." :-)

So much for people who don't understand the difference between current
flow, and wave propagation. :-)

73, Jim AC6XG

W4JLE wrote:
One can NOT see a
standing wave, whereas one may be computed from the observations.

Standing waves are in fact the observable result of the superposition of
traveling waves. Interferometers are devices which function because of
the fact that standing wave interference patterns are observable. Radio
interferometers allow us to do radio astronomy with improved spacial
resolution. We most certainly can see standing waves.

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil is getting at the effective value of an a-c waveform which is rms.
Slick and Cecil are talking about two different things.

I was a little sleepy when I wrote that. It didn't occur to me until
later that Slick can also use dQ/dt = 0 over a complete cycle to prove
that the average value of any AC current is zero, not just at a voltage
node. Hence the necessity for RMS values for AC.


That's not what i meant. I mean that with full reflections, there
will be nodes space 1/2 wavelengths apart that will have 0 RMS AC
current. These points will coincide with the absolute peak voltages
that occur on the line.



If Slick can tell a forward wave from a traveling wave by taking one and
only one current measurement at one point on a transmission line, and
knowing nothing else about the system, he is a better man than I.


More of your TRULY confusing terminology! It really helps you
cloud the
argument, doesn't it! Unfortunately, if you don't understand someone,
it usually means they are full of sh**!

A forward wave is a traveling wave, traveling forward.

If you give me the Max RMS AC current, and the Min RMS current, i
can most certainly tell you what the SWR is.


S.

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...
W4JLE wrote:
One can NOT see a
standing wave, whereas one may be computed from the observations.

Standing waves are in fact the observable result of the superposition of
traveling waves. Interferometers are devices which function because of
the fact that standing wave interference patterns are observable. Radio
interferometers allow us to do radio astronomy with improved spacial
resolution. We most certainly can see standing waves.

73, Jim AC6XG

being able to 'see' them is how they got their name. you could run a neon
bulb or other voltage or current detector along an open wire line and 'see'
the standing wave voltage and current peaks and nulls... that was of course
in the days before they would have warned you to stay far, far away from
sources of rf exposure like that.

Dr. Slick wrote:
A forward wave is a traveling wave, traveling forward.

If you give me the Max RMS AC current, and the Min RMS current, i
can most certainly tell you what the SWR is.

That's two measurements which violates the challenge. Given one and
only one current reading, is the current traveling or standing? The
fact that you cannot tell the difference means the two currents possess
the same nature, i.e. magnitude, phase, and direction.
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
So much for people who don't understand the difference between current
flow, and wave propagation. :-)

I've been talking about electron current flow, Jim, I don't recall
making any assertions about wave propagation. Waves and currents are
associated but are quite different things. Since the waves travel
at the speed of light, I assume photons are involved.
--
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! =-----

Cecil wrote,

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Here's what the standing
wave current looks like when it is not frozen in time. That's the topic of
discussion that everyone seems to want to avoid. Standing waves don't stand
still. They probably should have been called "looping waves".

http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/HTMs...newave2EX.html

I guess that kind of thing can be exciting for the unitiated. Good for
you, Cecil!

So much for some people I know who assert, "Standing waves don't move." :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


They change but they don't move.
73,
Tom Donaly

Cecil Moore wrote:

Waves and currents are
associated but are quite different things.

That's what I've been saying. Make sure you remember and apply that
concept when you're talking about 'direction'.

73, Jim AC6XG

Tdonaly wrote:
They change but they don't move.

Maybe it's relativity in action. The current stands
still and the earth moves around it?
--
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! =-----

On 09 Feb 2004 20:28:28 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote:
They change but they don't move.
73,
Tom Donaly

Gads Tom,

That will have him putting on his Galileo masquerade next. ;-)

I'm still waiting for that act where Cecileo drops his balls off the
Tower of Pisa.

I can anticipate the Cecilean logic now:
The balls, falling, traverse half the distance in half the time;
hence with each half of the remaining distance, half that time;
as there is always half the distance to go, they never hit;
ergo gravity does not exist!
If gravity does not exist, no test need be performed
(followed by 600 posts about the current in the Tiber).

[note: there is more than one error in this; however, I would just as
soon see which of his balls drops the farthest even if they don't hit
the ground.]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
I can anticipate the Cecilean logic now:
The balls, falling, traverse half the distance in half the time;
hence with each half of the remaining distance, half that time;
as there is always half the distance to go, they never hit;
ergo gravity does not exist!
If gravity does not exist, no test need be performed
(followed by 600 posts about the current in the Tiber).

And if recent history is any indicator, half the posts would be from
you, contributing virtually nothing to the discussion.

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Waves and currents are
associated but are quite different things.

That's what I've been saying. Make sure you remember and apply that
concept when you're talking about 'direction'.

All I've talked about, Jim, is the direction of current flow. The bottom
line for you is, EZNEC doesn't display a real-time plot of antenna current
as you first thought. An antenna's current changes phase every 1/2 cycle.
EZNEC's current display is referenced to the source current at zero degrees
and nowhere else.
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Waves and currents are
associated but are quite different things.

That's what I've been saying. Make sure you remember and apply that
concept when you're talking about 'direction'.

All I've talked about, Jim, is the direction of current flow.

Right. But some of the things you've been saying about it are
incorrect.
I've been pointing them out in this thread.

The bottom
line for you is, EZNEC doesn't display a real-time plot of antenna current
as you first thought.

??? I've never even expressed an opinion about EZNEC.

73, Jim AC6XG

Dr. Slick wrote:
Hint: In a standing wave ratio, there is still the flow of
coulombs, but it's more like they are sloshing back and forth (AC)
between the high voltage nodes.

And here's a hint for you: Assume two phase-locked lasers are pointed
at each other. Such a configuration will exhibit standing waves where
all the energy is contained in the electric field at some points and
1/2WL away, all the energy is contained in the magnetic field.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that given two interfering beams
of light, that the combined energies in those two light beams "are sloshing
back and forth" between the points where the net electric field equals
zero. Pray tell, what physical phenomenon is causing all those reflections?

Hint: Your assertion has been proven wrong by numerous experiments with lasers.
It is no more true for transmission lines than it is for lasers. The two beams
of light are "transparent" to each other just as forward current is transparent
to reflected current. The coherent waves traveling in opposite directions have
absolutely no effect on each other until they encounter a common discontinuity.
--
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! =-----

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:18:42 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
I can anticipate the Cecilean logic now:
The balls, falling, traverse half the distance in half the time;
hence with each half of the remaining distance, half that time;
as there is always half the distance to go, they never hit;
ergo gravity does not exist!
If gravity does not exist, no test need be performed
(followed by 600 posts about the current in the Tiber).

And if recent history is any indicator, half the posts would be from
you, contributing virtually nothing to the discussion.
You forget the entertainment factor - there is nothing in this thread
beyond the first three posts that have elevated this beyond
vaudeville. Glad to see you trying to wrest the percentage tho'

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
I can anticipate the Cecilean logic now:
The balls, falling, traverse half the distance in half the time;
hence with each half of the remaining distance, half that time;
as there is always half the distance to go, they never hit;
ergo gravity does not exist!

Actually, that's your logic, Richard. The math model dictates reality
and therefore, the balls will never hit the ground. I, OTOH, have a
better grasp of reality than to believe math models dictate reality.
--
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! =-----

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:00:53 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
light beams "are sloshing back and forth"
Exactly how lasers work.
between the points where the net electric field equals zero.
Exactly where they work.
what physical phenomenon is causing all those reflections?
They are called "mirrors." And they are set at the Brewster Angle.
It is impossible to remove them from the system if both beams are
boresight aligned.

You are observing the result of the destructive or constructive
interference. The standing wave, is still an abstraction used to define it.

We can't even get folks to agree whether current flows from positive to
negative, or negative to positive. and guess what, it doesn't matter.

The whole thing is just a figment that allows us to explain phenomena in a
rational manner. That is until the Clintonistas among us want to argue the
meaning of what is IS.

90% of the bandwidth in this forum is used by this kind of nonsense. While
it serves the ego of the proponents of their pet theory, it does nothing to
impart knowledge to the group.

I am sure, if I met Cecil in person, I would really enjoy being around him.
His hobby on the internet is debate, he creates the premise, and offers up
information that is designed to encourage a person to take a direction
already determined by Cecil. He then sets back and plays semantics games
untill you lose the debate by frustration.

With a tip of the hat to "WHOPPER" -"The only way to win, is not to play the
game..."

73 to you as well Sir
Fred W4JLE

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...
W4JLE wrote:
One can NOT see a
standing wave, whereas one may be computed from the observations.

Standing waves are in fact the observable result of the superposition of
traveling waves. Interferometers are devices which function because of
the fact that standing wave interference patterns are observable. Radio
interferometers allow us to do radio astronomy with improved spacial
resolution. We most certainly can see standing waves.

73, Jim AC6XG

W4JLE wrote:
I am sure, if I met Cecil in person, I would really enjoy being around him.

I quite agree.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:15:34 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I, OTOH, have a
better grasp of reality
That doesn't answer the Challenge: which of your balls will hit the
ground first?