On 7 Nov, 10:04, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:41:47 -0800, art wrote:
On 7 Nov, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

Exactly, bluffing again no mass

So no mass and bluffing shows the error ofRr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

?

No one doubts that from you Arthur. Do you know what mathematics is?

To this point, your theories lack equations, and lacking equations
they lack results. You often fail to provide the minimum enumerated
characteristics of
1. frequency;
2. wavelength;
3. angle;
4. gain;
5. resistance;
6. reactance;
7. Q;
8. voltage;
9. current.
Yet and all, you claim to have a theory of RF that lacks values for
each and everyone of these specifics that are rudderless in your brand
of math without equations. True, you line up all these words in all
the possible combinations and permutations (and sometimes even spell
them right), but not always in coherent sentences and rarely
punctuated correctly. Enlarge your word palette and you may one day
script "Hamlet" through the same random process.

However, I am glad to see you still read my comments! So that
inspires me to happily slog on through your murky postings. ;-)

Forge on for Queen and Country!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Get to mathematics. Prove me wrong by your own hand.
Nobody has yet and nobody can.
Words don't trump mathematics