Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
And to wrap this all into another thread NOT about antennas (just as
this thread never was), and more about personalities (which was all
that this thread started out to be) of the violin:
"Time Is" from "It's a Beautiful Day" by the LaFlammes

-Whew-

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

That is the worst statement I have EVER heard you make.

Time is a MAJOR factor in antenna calculations.

If you wish to decide what is on topic and NOT on topic, how about
corrosion limiters? Nylon rope? (yes, used by some as guys!) Ground
conduction enhancers? (salts) Trees? (yes, used by some as masts) The
antenna as art? (yes, some have to please their neighbors) Trenching
equipment? (yes, some go overboard on the ground establishing wires)
Bumper jacks? (yes, some use these to hoist up their collapsible masts)
Etc., etc.

Your interests about antennas like in a purely physical realm using
established methods, both practical and computational--some of ours
don't. Why your interests should over-ride others is a bit perplexing
to me ...

Regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.
Use a different standard, you get a different answer. So what?

So why strive for more and more accuracy in the absolute
age of the universe if the time standard is arbitrary?

*ALL* units of measurement are arbitrary. Once a standard is set, that's
(if you are sane) what you use.

By that convoluted logic:

The dollar is an arbitrary unit so why strive for accuracy in your paycheck?

The inch is an arbitrary unit so why should the carpenter strive for
accuracy in matching the new door to your old door frame?

Miles per hour are based on two arbitrary units so why should the cop
give you a ticket for doing 90 in a 35 MPH zone?

The liter is an arbitrary unit so why should the maker strive to ensure
there is 2 liters of soda in a 2 liter bottle?

But, I know you are just playing word games here.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

Antennas led astray
 

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:41:56 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

That is the worst statement I have EVER heard you make.

You actually HEARD it? Therein might lie your problem.

Time is a MAJOR factor in antenna calculations.

Of course, when I first used ELNEC, it took forever to model some
designs that takes EZNEC forever now (infinities being relative and
all). Some of these time dialogues underway now exhibit Zeno's
web-enhanced paradox: No one gives a **** before you are halfway
through the thread. I only look at every third post at most; so for
me, dialog has simultaneously jumped into the future while becoming
retrograde (moving backward in quality - time is money).

The upshot is that I get to hi-grade the nonsense, and peel the
banality one layer at a time for its comic content:

If you wish to decide what is on topic and NOT on topic, how about
corrosion limiters?

Been there.

Nylon rope? (yes, used by some as guys!)

Been there.

Ground conduction enhancers? (salts)

Been there.

Trees? (yes, used by some as masts)

Been there.

The antenna as art? (yes, some have to please their neighbors)

Been there.

Trenching equipment? (yes, some go overboard on the ground establishing wires)

Been there.

Bumper jacks? (yes, some use these to hoist up their collapsible masts)
Etc., etc.

Well, I haven't touched on that perhaps, but the list is hardly
exhaustive - is it?

Your interests about antennas like in a purely physical realm using
established methods, both practical and computational--some of ours
don't.

This would make more sense with a predicate... then again, maybe not.

Why your interests should over-ride others is a bit perplexing
to me ...

Then you should invest some time in the archives given the number of
hits on topics you consider to be foreign to me having "talked" about.
Your list reveals very little reading on your part. That is in scope,
not currency (I've been here some 12 or 11 years now). As already
offered (you didn't hear that either?), yours is a cultural problem,
not a technical one.

Now, seriously, you don't REALLY think that I would limit my
correspondence to just ONE topic - do you?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
That was the same argument used by Catholic Church
when they put Galileo under house arrest for the rest
of his life.

That might have been clever the first 5 or 10 times you trotted it
out. How about this one: To a man with a hammer, everything looks
like a nail.

If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards
from another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to
do so. The Journal of Irreproducible Results awaits! :-)

73, ac6xg

Antennas led astray
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

I accept those 3's, and right back at ya, I have no bone to pick with
you--well, maybe your attraction to Shakespeare! LOL

Your advice, while rather cryptic, assists and amuses me ... thanks!

Warmest regards,
JS

Antennas led astray
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

*ALL* units of measurement are arbitrary. Once a standard is set, that's
(if you are sane) what you use.

By that convoluted logic:

The dollar is an arbitrary unit so why strive for accuracy in your paycheck?

The inch is an arbitrary unit so why should the carpenter strive for
accuracy in matching the new door to your old door frame?

Miles per hour are based on two arbitrary units so why should the cop
give you a ticket for doing 90 in a 35 MPH zone?

The liter is an arbitrary unit so why should the maker strive to ensure
there is 2 liters of soda in a 2 liter bottle?

But, I know you are just playing word games here.


Sir:

You SERIOUSLY miss the point.

You mean the point where I won't subscribe to arm waving philosophy and
insist on science?

All you named there are an invention of man and man allows himself to be
governed by them ... (some don't, ever hear about income tax evasion and
prisons?)

Babble.

The laws of mathematics, physics and the sciences exist in an absolute
form, somewhere ...

Utter nonsense.

All units are human constructs.

There is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, or much of
anything else absolute except the value of pi.

There is no absolute quanta of time, length, mass, flux density, energy,
power, angular measure, force, or speed.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Antennas led astray
 

Antennas led astray
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards
from another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to
do so.


You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the
universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard
that may be continuously changing is technical insanity.

The point you're missing is that the standard isn't changing with
respect to the frame in which the observations are made. We're
accurately measuring what we're observing in our reference frame -
unless of course you're prepared to prove otherwise.

73, Jim AC6XG

Antennas led astray
 

wrote:
The dollar is an arbitrary unit so why strive for accuracy in your paycheck?

How much did an ounce of gold cost in dollars one
year after the first super nova? That is the point
that you are missing.

But, I know you are just playing word games here.

Nope, you completely missed the point. Our seconds
are just as arbitrary as our dollars. Our dollars
didn't exist one year after the first super nova
and neither did our seconds.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com