|
|
The long and short of it is that you have absolutely nothing to back up your assertions of vastly improved efficiency - that's the reality compared to your testimonials that wouldn't get a vote on American Idol. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC You are right, and you uncovered me. Shocks! Yep, the real life results mean nothing! Long live flat earth! Bring your mobile 160m setup to shootout with mine and let's see your .01 dB difference. Can we stick to arguments without ridicule? Or is W8JI disease spreading around? I am grateful for the "wisdom" displayed here, for it illustrates the level of knowledge and experience. I will use it in my article for the benefit of those who will appreciate it. Some of the jabs will end up looking silly. Again, Cecil, my hat off to you for your help and patience. Yuri da BUm |
|
What are the answers to the technical questions: What design did you start with and at what efficiency? Classical mobile whip with 160m loading coil and whip. What design did you end up with and at what efficiency? Improved K3BU design based on knowledge gained from current distribution in a loading coils. Details can be obtained against non-disclosure agreement. What was the improvement in efficiency? Significant, from S0 to S7 - S9. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC 73 Yuri, K3BU/m |
|
Richard Clark wrote:
I offered an EZNEC analysis that supported (circumspectly) Yuri's position, but he blew it off chasing rainbows. Don't know about anybody else, but that posting never appeared on my news-server. That's the first time I have ever seen 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! =----- |
Richard Clark wrote:
The long and short of it is that you have absolutely nothing to back up your assertions of vastly improved efficiency ... Even it that were true, it wouldn't change the result of the argument based on W8JI's assertion: If you look at HOW an inductor works, the current flowing in one terminal ALWAYS equals the current flowing out the other terminal. The only question is: Do you support W8JI's position even though his own measurements proved otherwise? -- 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 Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:30:06 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: I offered an EZNEC analysis that supported (circumspectly) Yuri's position, but he blew it off chasing rainbows. Don't know about anybody else, but that posting never appeared on my news-server. That's the first time I have ever seen it. You mean you actually read this group? |
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:38:53 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: The long and short of it is that you have absolutely nothing to back up your assertions of vastly improved efficiency ... Even it that were true Even IF |
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: The long and short of it is that you have absolutely nothing to back up your assertions of vastly improved efficiency ... Even it that were true Even IF Shirley, you understand a conditional statement, Richard. The following is a logically true statement: "If the moon was made of green cheese, then a cow could indeed jump over it." May I recommend a good logic textbook? _Logic_, by Ruby. -- 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 02:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com