Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Brian Reay" wrote in message ... "Mrs.Nugatory's, The Minimum's, G3VKI's, M3OSN's and Mick Hunter's Obsession" wrote in message ... This discussion is about the comments..... " Conversely, the (wanted) signal currents (on the outside of the inner and inside of the outer) cancel out the magnetic fields they form in the coil and thus don't see it as an inductor." .....which discuss non-existent fields. The containment of the wanted fields within the coaxial cable is another, different, discussion. So you don't have a better explanation, fair enough why didn't you just say so? Until you come up with something better, mine seems to be the one in game. Once again Chippenham is a Foot in Mouth, technical knowledge exclusion zone.................. So, you are unable to explain your assertion and resort to rather silly and infantile interjections in a forlorn attempt to divert attention? You said the following..... " Conversely, the (wanted) signal currents (on the outside of the inner and inside of the outer) cancel out the magnetic fields they form in the coil and thus don't see it as an inductor." .....which discusses non-existent fields. Unless you now justify your own remarks you will lose face. No amount of bluster, spin-doctoring, side-stepping, bull****ting and downright lying from you will hide the fact that you are losing face. I will be more than happy to reply with an explanation once you offer a first explanation of yours of your assertion quoted above. You made an assertion, I replied with an assertion. You want an explanation from me, you start with your own explanation Over to you..... (The clock is ticking, your face is reddening) |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mrs.Nugatory's, The Minimum's, G3VKI's, M3OSN's and Mick Hunter's Obsession" wrote in message ... I will be more than happy to reply with an explanation once you offer a first explanation of yours of your assertion quoted above. You made an assertion, I replied with an assertion. You want an explanation from me, you start with your own explanation Over to you..... (The clock is ticking, your face is reddening) Or is this to be your "e^(-jwt) is a function that decreases with t increasing" all over again? "Drub, drub, drub, M3 in a tub" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
England makes me really,really, MAD! | Policy | |||
England makes me really,really, MAD! | CB | |||
Makes you wonder... | CB | |||
What makes a real ham? | Policy | |||
Horizontal loop - balun or no balun ? | Antenna |