On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:40:15 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote:

May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:52:58 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote:

Please explain the "faulty mathmatics from the masters"
Please show equations with proofs.

Wow! From Hero to Zero in 12 minutes and 33 seconds.

Jimmie, you could have waited the obligatory 12 days, 33 hours and 54
thousand seconds to discover there are no facts to be had that
1. Contradict ordinary-as-mud modeling;
2. Reveal theories that would astonish the multitudes;
3. Offer a revelation of how statics can perform what dynamics do
daily. And certainly
4. No evidence of the comprehension that statics are a mathematical
fiction. Life does not allow them, and they are completely unknown
outside of a book or a classroom.

Art cannot even explain how he obtained a 50 Ohm non-reactive feed
into his five assorted wires, non of which could have possible
supported a fifth of that value (and jacked up with so much reactance
as to reject all power).

As for your first observation above about waiting. The poster is
entirely responsible for content, both its length and its purpose.
This can be as easily achieved in one posting as in 200. If the past
is to inform us of how efficiently that process has been successful;
then your cæsura || is entirely justified.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:45:29 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

Wow! From Hero to Zero in 12 minutes and 33 seconds.

Who woulda thunk that my observation of time would have been the
driving motivation to correspondence in this thread?

Jimmie, you could have waited the obligatory 12 days, 33 hours and 54
thousand seconds to discover there are no facts to be had that
1. Contradict ordinary-as-mud modeling;
2. Reveal theories that would astonish the multitudes;
3. Offer a revelation of how statics can perform what dynamics do
daily. And certainly
4. No evidence of the comprehension that statics are a mathematical
fiction. Life does not allow them, and they are completely unknown
outside of a book or a classroom.

This forecast still has ten days to run out, but history has born that
it will foretell with absolute accuracy. Take it to the bank.

Art cannot even explain how he obtained a 50 Ohm non-reactive feed
into his five assorted wires, non of which could have possible
supported a fifth of that value (and jacked up with so much reactance
as to reject all power).

This last observation has stood the test of time quite well. It may
find itself in the hall of records.

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 Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:45:29 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

Wow! From Hero to Zero in 12 minutes and 33 seconds.

Who woulda thunk that my observation of time would have been the
driving motivation to correspondence in this thread?

Jimmie, you could have waited the obligatory 12 days, 33 hours and 54
thousand seconds to discover there are no facts to be had that
1. Contradict ordinary-as-mud modeling;
2. Reveal theories that would astonish the multitudes;
3. Offer a revelation of how statics can perform what dynamics do
daily. And certainly
4. No evidence of the comprehension that statics are a mathematical
fiction. Life does not allow them, and they are completely unknown
outside of a book or a classroom.

This forecast still has ten days to run out, but history has born that
it will foretell with absolute accuracy. Take it to the bank.

Art cannot even explain how he obtained a 50 Ohm non-reactive feed
into his five assorted wires, non of which could have possible
supported a fifth of that value (and jacked up with so much reactance
as to reject all power).

This last observation has stood the test of time quite well. It may
find itself in the hall of records.

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

The subject line is most appropriate

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

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

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