On 19 Apr, 10:58, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 18 Apr, 17:09, Danny Richardson wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 14:17:27 -0700, art wrote:

I've never seen a 'spirit level' being used in a tool room for
accuracy nor could I specify from what you said as to why it should be
used from now on instead of conventional means.

Well, I guess you haven't had much experience in the tool room.
Otherwise you would have been aware of how precession levels used to
set up machinery. They are used often. How do you think those long bed
lathes are adjusted so they are straight, level and parallel? Yes, my
poor misinformed person they use precession levels.

Danny, K6MHE

Danny,
don't be silly, you obviously have not spent a lot of time in a tool
room.
A tool room machine is not in any way used as a reference level. What
is used as a reference level is the machine slide with reference to
the cutting plane. An installation of a machine is subject to settling
but it does not affect the accuracy of the product.
Use of a spirit level over the use of a straight piece of angle as a
reference plane is rather stupid and impracticable.

What a pompous jerk. You have finally stooped so low to try to make your
ownself sound intelligent as to insult others.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, he insulted every body elses intelligence.Actually your idea
regarding the piece of angle
as a reference guide for the scribe seemed to be the most practicable.
As yet I have not found the tolerance range for a spirit level whether
it be angular or otherwise. As for insults to ones intelligence I get
them all the time from idiots who do not have the knoweledge to even
understand the subject let alone give proof of errors stated that they
are trying to challenge.
Look around you Jimmy, here we are in the company of antenna experts,
lots of them. Simple questions are posed by newbies and each expert
writes something different such that an answer is never arrived at.
There is not one expert here that can give a single response that can
satisfy all posters which really gives meaning to don't just ask one
expert, ask a dozen experts and then punt. I often get comments that
my statements are not clear
but check out some of the threads that have over 100 or 200 responses,
obviously I am not the only one that is not clear in my writings. Just
imagine all the insults floating around on things imaginary or things
that are virtual or even simple things such a SWR and then some body
suggests to a newbie that he throw all his measuring instruments,
scribers, micrometers but keep only ,yes only, the spirit level when
dealing with the building of antennas ! Maybe it is time to give up my
subscription to RADCOM if this is what I have been paying for. Jimmie
you are one of many that hang apon my tail with the pretense of being
an expert and sooner or later you will look back on this thread
wondering how I could have been so dumb to follow the other naysayers
when I see so much use of Gaussian antennas being made. Some asked for
mathematical proof and when they got it from an indepedent source they
are so much in denial that they keep on digging a hole for themselves
but cannot come up with anything that faults the mathematics and thus
resort to silly talk or flowery language that just shows up as a bunch
of weeds. Jimmie give me something of substance we can talk about to
separate us from multi posters who seem to be doing their utmost in
talking about other things other than antennas and opting for
theoretical talk that emboldens those to post likewise in coat tail
fashion.
Art..........See you at Dayton, I'll be on the look out