| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Cecil Moore wrote:
SNIP Shirley, you understand a conditional statement, Richard. SNIP Cecil, it's time for bed!! How did Shirley get into this discussion?? :-) I hope you mean 'surely'?? |
Dave Shrader wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Shirley, you understand a conditional statement, Richard. Cecil, it's time for bed!! How did Shirley get into this discussion?? :-) From "Airplane": "Surely your jest!" - "No, I am not joking, and don't call me Shirley!" - line by Leslie Neilson (sp?). -- 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! =----- |
Tdonaly wrote:
Cecil says there's a taper but he doesn't attempt to say how much. It is what it is, Tom, and can be measured. Yuri thinks it's a lot. Cecil seems to agree with him, but neither fellow has been willing to back his theory with a $$$$ NEW $$$ [{### IMPROVED ###}] mobile antenna. Your observation is accurate but irrelevant. I'm not interested in an improved antenna since I already improved it many years ago and equaled the top performers in the shootout with an essentially costless junk box antenna. My main thrust here at the moment is to set the technical record straight and BBQ one of ham radio's sacred cows represented by W8JI's following assertion: "If you look at HOW an inductor works, the current flowing in one terminal ALWAYS equals the current flowing out the other terminal." So do you agree with Tom or with me since Tom's own measurements proved him wrong? -- 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! =----- |
Tdonaly wrote: Cecil says there's a taper but he doesn't Cecil wrote, attempt to say how much. It is what it is, Tom, and can be measured. Yuri thinks it's a lot. Cecil seems to agree with him, but neither fellow has been willing to back his theory with a $$$$ NEW $$$ [{### IMPROVED ###}] mobile antenna. Your observation is accurate but irrelevant. I'm not interested in an improved antenna since I already improved it many years ago and equaled the top performers in the shootout with an essentially costless junk box antenna. My main thrust here at the moment is to set the technical record straight and BBQ one of ham radio's sacred cows represented by W8JI's following assertion: "If you look at HOW an inductor works, the current flowing in one terminal ALWAYS equals the current flowing out the other terminal." So do you agree with Tom or with me since Tom's own measurements proved him wrong? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Tom would be right if he were only talking in network-theoretical terms. Since he makes his coils for maximum Q, his coils may be small enough for him to make that assertion. I don't know. I've never seen a Tom Rauch coil. Since you're not too slick in the electromagnetics department, yourself, you shouldn't be throwing stones at Tom. When, and if, you can ever demonstrate a knowledge of even the most basic ideas of electromagnetic theory, then maybe you and I can find something to agree on. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
"Someone probably rejected relativity and said, 'How much
effect does the orbit of Mercury have on the people of earth?' " _______________ The word "effect," (result, consequence) is a noun. "Affect" is a verb (to act upon, to change or to cause a change), and, probably the appropriate word for the context of your post. Perhaps the use of correct English would reduce reader confusion? "Best regards" RF |
Richard Fry wrote:
"Someone probably rejected relativity and said, 'How much effect does the orbit of Mercury have on the people of earth?' " The word "effect," (result, consequence) is a noun. "Affect" is a verb (to act upon, to change or to cause a change), and, probably the appropriate word for the context of your post. Nope, I said exactly what I intended to say. Before relativity, the prediction for the orbit of Mercury contained an error. How much effect did that error have on the people of earth? Perhaps the use of correct English would reduce reader confusion? Perhaps you had better review your rules of English. "Effect" was used properly as a noun. -- 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 Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:04:45 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote: "Someone probably rejected relativity and said, 'How much effect does the orbit of Mercury have on the people of earth?' " _______________ The word "effect," (result, consequence) is a noun. "Affect" is a verb (to act upon, to change or to cause a change), and, probably the appropriate word for the context of your post. Perhaps the use of correct English would reduce reader confusion? "Best regards" RF Hello RF, From the Oxford English Dictionary effect v. 1589 1. to bring about, to accomplish ... 4. confused with Affect effect sb. 1812 1c. the amount of work done in a given time. affect sb. 1626 1. a mental disposition affect v. 1794 1. to aim at, seek Correct English is, and has always been, a matter of usage within context. Verbs can serve as Nouns and Nouns as Verbs. Further, even clauses and phrases may serve as Nouns or Verbs. The English language is rich with example. Languages such as French and Italian have historically had the affect to effect a fixed and static meaning to every word and thus affect rules of "correctness." This effect has lead to those languages becoming museum pieces. The common usage of "affect" generally implies a faddish mannerism (which is frequently observed in this forum e.g. a lot posting is merely affectation). However, as to the issue of the sentence: "How much effect does the orbit of Mercury have on the people of earth?" "the orbit of Mercury" is the Subject with the Predicate "does have" and the Compliment of "on the people of earth" "How much effect" is an adverbial phrase modifying the Predicate through describing degree using the noun "effect" modified by the adjective "much." Hence through usage, syntax, and definition, "effect" is a noun. To test this usage, you can re-arrange the sequence to find: "The orbit of Mercury does have how much effect on the people of earth?" without changing the sense of the question. It is rather stilted and perhaps "The orbit of Mercury has how much effect on the people of earth?" flows better, but this, again, has no impact on the noun usage of "effect." The key to the analysis is found in the adverb "how" with the proximity of the adjective "much" and "effect" a noun perfectly offering the classic characteristic of degree. In other words, the sentence is both grammatically correct and conforms to your expectation. A better criticism would be that it is gratuitous. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:23:10 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: How much effect did that error have on the people of earth? About as much as current taper in a coil. |
Richard Clark wrote:
In other words, the sentence is both grammatically correct and conforms to your expectation. A better criticism would be that it is gratuitous. In other words, when you can't find anything wrong with what is being said, reply with an ad hominem statement. :-) -- 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! =----- |
About as much as current taper in a coil.
Uh, Huh, Huh |
|
Mark Keith wrote:
"Start with a center load. Note the current taper. Then place the coil below the midpoint level. Note the current taper." Mark may want an indication of the better site on a too-short whip for a loading coil. John Devoldere, ON4UN shows what he`s found in his book "Low-Band DXing". On page 9-14 John says: "It is clear now that the real issue with short verticals are EFFICIENCY and BANDWIDTH. -----Therefore maximum attention must be paid to these terms by: Keeping the radiation resistance as high as possible Keeping the losses of the loading devices as low as possible" John gives radiation resistance formulas for base loading, top loading, center loading, combined top and base loading, and linear loading. John says on page 9-19: "The rule for keeping the radiation resistance high is simple: Use as long a vertical as possible (up to 90-degrees) Use top loading Low-Band DXing is worth checking out. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Cecil Moore wrote in message
Then you disagree with the guys who say it has no taper. Guess what, Mark? That puts you on my and Yuri's side of the argument. Maybe so, but I place much less importance on this than he does. You may also place less importance on strawberry ice cream than he does. I probably would. There are many other flavors I like better... To me, it means very little, if anything. Yuri was accused of "Repeating misleading information". Here is a typical response to one of Yuri's postings: "You like to call names, insult people, and argue rather than take the time to learn basic electronics. ... If you look at HOW an inductor works, the current flowing in one terminal ALWAYS equals the current flowing out the other terminal." Note the word "ALWAYS". The ad hominem attacks upon Yuri is probably one reason he considers the subject to be important. Thats fine, as long as he doesn't try to convince me it is. I have no problem with anything he is doing. My only objection is to the early claims that this amounts to gross error when modeling. It surely does not. I'm not sure if he still believes this gross error exists or not... MK |
|
|
Richard Harrison wrote:
John says on page 9-19: "The rule for keeping the radiation resistance high is simple: Use as long a vertical as possible (up to 90-degrees) Use top loading I arrived at the same conclusion many years ago by assuming the current taper in a 75m loading coil would be maximum when the coil was as far away from the feedpoint as possible. Using that assumption and a few free parts from my junk box, my top loaded mobile equaled the best of the best (and most expensive) at one of the CA 75m shootouts. And that was with a pretty small capacitive top hat. -- 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! =----- |
Mark Keith wrote:
My only objection is to the early claims that this amounts to gross error when modeling. Again, you two may be using a different definition of "gross". I would say a 20% error in the estimation of current at the top of a loading coil is a pretty gross error. Your opinion may differ. -- 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! =----- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com