Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:12:59 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Are you still ignorant of which of two phases?

I have spelled out the desired phases three times now.
This will be the forth time.

Fourth. (You suffer from spelling as well as logic, theory, math...
errors. Yes, you freely admit to all of this, but stop wringing your
hands, we all know it merely exhibits the eccentric's classic signs of
that 260 IQ.)

However, the assembled group (loitering in the wings, amused at this
comic duo) will agree you've arrived at some form of conclusion
quicker than in 20 dips into memory's poisoned well. Your netzheimers
must be in 16/20ths (as in (20 - 4)/20) remission. Would that be
computed to square law to specify your recall at -1.94dB? Perhaps
not. Random scraps of error free math does not impart validity.

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Perhaps if you could state
what the two are, and which you are using, the rest of us would be
satisified you are no longer confused.

I've done that four times now, Richard. I even did
the math for you. I'm not going to waste any further
time on you.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I have spelled out the desired phases three times now.
This will be the forth time.

Fourth. (You suffer from spelling as well as logic, theory, math...
errors.

My spell checker didn't catch that one. I knew it was
only a matter of time until you stooped to complaining
about my spelling, close to as low as a person can
stoop. Your ulterior motive here is clear to all.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You missed the point. A terminating capacitor is a two
terminal network. The point where two pieces of feedline
are connected is a four-terminal network. A two-terminal
network is different from a four-terminal network.

This appears to be an unusual definition.

Not unusual at all, Gene. The two input terminals to the
black box are on one side. The two output terminals from
the black box are on the other side. The impedance
discontinuity is inside the box. The black box is extremely
small.

Give me the four s-parameters, s11, s12, s21, and s22
and I can tell you virtually everything about what is
inside the black box without even applying a signal.


BZZZT! Wrong answer.

Nobody ever said anything about the "other side" of the black box.
Everything has been referenced to "the point where two pieces of
feedline are connected."

Nobody is trying to suggest that what is inside one black box is
identical to what is inside another black box. The only thing known is
that the *two* accessible terminals to each of the black boxes show the
same specific impedance at the given frequency. Nothing else. Yet by
your models and math the black boxes don't behave the same in your test
circuit.

You still have not addressed the original question posed by Keith.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:22:36 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I have spelled out the desired phases three times now.
This will be the forth time.

Fourth. (You suffer from spelling as well as logic, theory, math...
errors.

My spell checker didn't catch that one.

Well, for an admitted MENSA member (or lapsed member, which gives the
impression of a limp pendant) also having troubles in catching math
errors, or confused dualities; then it stands you must also be warned
a spell checker doesn't validate syntax, nor the validity of
expression.

As I know you stumble over English, I will put it in Texican:
"Random math does not validate irrational theory;
Xeroxed words littered on the page does not sell snake oil."
(OK, so it is more like cowboy couplet haiku.)

I knew it was
only a matter of time until you stooped to complaining
about my spelling,

Netzheimers remission is clearing the fog, is it?

close to as low as a person can
stoop. Your ulterior motive here is clear to all.

"All" seem to be very few (except for those chuckling in the wings).

*** So, moving back to the technical side of the balance sheet. ***

No problems with my math assuming the square law computation of your
recall at -1.94dB? I thought you might want to boost it to 19/20ths
with having to only say it once and suffer a recall of -0.45dB.

Was that a new low? This exterior motive was especially formulated
for your the sake of your depressed recall response curve. ;-)

So that you can preserve your dignity - I will leave you the last
word. And remember, always leave them laughing (think of it as
another theory you are introducing).

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:18:55 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Perhaps if you could state
what the two are, and which you are using, the rest of us would be
satisified you are no longer confused.

I've done that four times now, Richard. I even did
the math for you. I'm not going to waste any further
time on you.

Retiring from king of the hill, last man standing competition?

I Don't Think So!

You are forever doomed to fulfill the cliché. :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

I see that the smudge pots have been lit and the hand waving,
misdirection, and desperate attempts at changing the subject begins. As
they have so many times before. What a waste of all that alleged IQ.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
I see that the smudge pots have been lit and the hand waving, misdirection,
and desperate attempts at changing the subject begins. As they have so many
times before. What a waste of all that alleged IQ.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I do believe that someone may have inadvertently added 100 to that IQ.
Everyone on here with the exception of the gifted one has known for the last
3 days that Richard has been just pulling his bobber under. He finally
picked up on it this morning and decided to stop wasting his time. Now if he
would only make that a promise!

W4ZCB

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:33:34 GMT, "Harold E. Johnson"
wrote:

I do believe that someone may have inadvertently added 100 to that IQ.
Everyone on here with the exception of the gifted one has known for the last
3 days that Richard has been just pulling his bobber under. He finally
picked up on it this morning and decided to stop wasting his time. Now if he
would only make that a promise!

Harold!

I resemble that earmark!

Add 100 indeed, I thought it was 200.

As for your last sentence. The "he" is rather unspecific as two
correspondents made a promise (perhaps not so well timed as to fit
your observation here). However, I too will sit on the edge of my
seat in wonderment to that outcome.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

I(x,t) = Imax sin(kx) cos(wt)

For any point location 'x', it can be seen that the standing
wave current is not "flowing" in the ordinary sense of the word
but rather, is just oscillating in place at that fixed point.

According to the equation you provide above, for any point location 'x',
the phase of the current varies continuously with t. Presumably that is
what it means to just oscillate in place.

Of course, that's what it means. It doesn't move right or left.
I(x,t) = Imax sin(kx) cos(-wt) would be just as accurate a
description. One cannot even tell which way the standing-wave
phasor is rotating. This equates to putting the source
on either end of a lossless stub without anything changing.
Standing-wave current phase is unchanging up and down a lossless
stub. Standing-wave current phase changes hardly at all up and
down a stub with losses or a wire 1/2WL dipole. That current
cannot be used to obtain a valid delay through a wire or a coil.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com