Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:53:09 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:
Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.

Hi Art,

It was some schlemiel called Isaac Newton.

He offered a very simple equation you probably are not familiar with:
G times the Mass of Body A time the Mass of Body B
divided by
distance between them squared

This English clown's theory was put into a cocked hat by Einstein - so
you two have something in common!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
It is a well know scientific fact the only true aphrodisiac is a man
doing housework.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hmmm, I differ, my wife will trade work for sex--but only if I do the
work. I don't then an "aphrodisiac effect" is at play though ... LOL

Regards,
JS

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

John Smith wrote:

...
I don't think an "aphrodisiac effect" is at play though ... LOL
...

Hmmm, the 20mg Hydrocodone has more of a "kick" than I realize.

Regards,
JS

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On 7 Dec, 16:46, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:53:09 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.

Hi Art,

It was some schlemiel called Isaac Newton.

He offered a very simple equation you probably are not familiar with:
G times the Mass of Body A time the Mass of Body B
divided by
distance between them squared

This English clown's theory was put into a cocked hat by Einstein - so
you two have something in common!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I did not know that equation. Einstein said a lot of things and
was often proved in error. Did he mention equilibrium or the
other laws like:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? For that matter
how many laws of Newton did he put down?
Any idea where I can read up on that and how he arrived at that
conclusion? Seems odd that we have so many gravity centers in this
universe and a neutral point never occurs.....anywhere.
Some of those stationary things in the sky must be holding on to a
piece of string tied to the moon
No. I do not have any books on Einstein but do have Planck and
I don't recall him mentioning that.Is it just called Einsteins Law
of ???????
Art
Oh, and another thing why are you injecting the word "clown"?
Are you reverting to your old tricks or did you just slip up?

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Dec 7, 4:09 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
So sometimes a 600 to 100 ohm discontinuity
produces a 36.6 degree phase shift and sometimes
it produces a 22.7 degree phase shift (and probably
any value in between).

Yes, of course - nobody said the phase shift wasn't
a variable. Why would you expect it to be a constant?
It is a variable that depends upon the phase of the
component forward and reflected waves.

I suggest that "work[ing] up the phasor diagrams of
the component voltages (or currents) at the junction
where rho = (600-100)/(600+100) = 0.7143" will
not be useful for predicting the phase shift.

It will be useful for reporting that particular phase
shift. If other conditions change, that phase shift
will change. What is unexpected about that?

You implied that you were going to compute it
using just rho, which would mean it would be
constant for any pair of impedances.

With more inputs, it might be possible to
compute a number that, when added to the
actual electrical lengths of the lines, will
result in 90 degrees. I expect the algorithm
to be fairly complicated.

Of course, one can always just say it is equal
to 90 minus the sum of the electrical lengths
of the lines, though if there were two or more
impedance discontinuities, it might be difficult
to apportion the difference between them.

I await the algorithm.

....Keith

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Dec 7, 4:10 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail.

I believe that is a false statement. Please
prove your assertion.

The best example was when you refused to discuss
the reflections at the output of an amplifier with a
well defined output impedance because a typical
amateur transmitter does not have a well defined
output impedance.

The discussion was going to demolish the idea of
complete re-reflection at the output of a transmitter
but stalled because you refused to use the simple
case to examine the issue. Using the more
complicated scenario of a real transmitter it was
much easier to obfuscate with the result that the
discussion went nowhere.

Which was sad because there was much
opportunity for learning there.

....Keith

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
You implied that you were going to compute it
using just rho, which would mean it would be
constant for any pair of impedances.

No, I did not. Rho can be constant but the phase
angle of the incident voltage changes with
position. Therefore, the phase angle of the
reflected voltage changes with position.

This subject is already covered in my energy
analysis article at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
The best example was when you refused to discuss
the reflections at the output of an amplifier with a
well defined output impedance because a typical
amateur transmitter does not have a well defined
output impedance.

I tend to avoid discussions about amplifiers because
I know very little about amplifiers, real or imagined.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:14:36 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

I did not know that equation. Einstein said a lot of things and
was often proved in error. Did he mention equilibrium or the
other laws like:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?

Hi Arthur,

Every equation describes equilibrium, by definition.

For that matter
how many laws of Newton did he put down?

All of them.

Any idea where I can read up on that and how he arrived at that
conclusion? Seems odd that we have so many gravity centers in this
universe and a neutral point never occurs.....anywhere.

Not so. A simple example is called the "Trojan points."

Some of those stationary things in the sky must be holding on to a
piece of string tied to the moon

Well, given the moon moves, the string must move whatever is tied to
it. In short, there is nothing stationary anywhere.

No. I do not have any books on Einstein but do have Planck and
I don't recall him mentioning that.Is it just called Einsteins Law
of ???????

General relativity.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

AI4QJ wrote:
"art" wrote in message
...

In fact the law
of
statics is based on gravitational field which extends to what
Gauss called the limits of gravitational effects.
Quite a few other laws are based on similar logic

Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG(uk)

What is the mass of 1 Volt/meter?



Actually, you can store energy in an electrical field easily enough; ask
any capacitor. And energy has a mass equivalent. It may not be much, but
it isn't zero. This probably isn't what Art means, though. If you
thought about his post deeply enough, and in just the right way, you'd
see what he's getting at. Smart ass questions aren't helpful. Not that
I'm agreeing with Art. I'm not. But if you want to understand, as
opposed to just being sarcastic, you'll have to train your mind to
operate the way his does. Cecil, on the other hand, wants to argue,
so his posts aren't as much fun, but he does write some entertaining
things on occasion, and his theories are tolerable enough as long as you
realize they're all quite wrong.
73,
KA6RUH