Gene Fuller wrote:
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.

That's obviously a lie. I said something about the other side
of the black box.

Yet by
your models and math the black boxes don't behave the same in your test
circuit.

That's another lie. All my models and math show the black
boxes all behaving exactly the same external to the two input
terminals. In fact, I have said it is impossible for it to
be any other way.

Is there no limit to how dishonest you will be?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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

Didn't read your last (promise) until after I sent that. You know who I
meant. BTW, did you just by any chance ever work for me at the PME Lab in
Hawaii ?

W4ZCB

Roy Lewallen wrote:
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.

Do you think that waving your hands and posting gobblegook
like the above is any better? Please, please, make a technical
statement with which you know I disagree and let's discuss
it like mature individuals.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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!

I'm a simple trusting person who tries to see the good
in everyone, even Richard C. Please pick a technical
subject upon which we disagree and let's discuss it
like technical gentlemen.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Roy Lewallen wrote:
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, you are always saying I should be using voltages for
my calculations and that's exactly what I did.

--43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--10 deg 100 ohm line--open
Vfor1--|--Vfor2

With 100 volts at zero degrees incident upon the open
end of the stub, I get:

Vfor1 = 143.33 volts at -46.6 deg
Vfor2 = 110 volts at -10 deg

for a phase shift through the impedance discontinuity
of 36.6 degrees. What do you get?

Don't anybody hold his breath waiting for an answer.
The Emperor has no clothes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

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

Standing-wave current phase changes hardly at all up and
down a stub with losses or a wire 1/2WL dipole.

That is correct to the same extent that t in the equation above
"changes hardly at all" with time.

73, ac6xg

Roy Lewallen wrote:
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.

Please note: This is pure unadulterated political power
in action devoid of any technical content. Roy is trying
to use his guru status, devoid of any technical argument,
to try to discredit someone. If I am so obviously technically
wrong, why doesn't he just prove me wrong with mathematics and
formulas? (Because he cannot?)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:02:16 GMT, "Harold E. Johnson"
wrote:

Didn't read your last (promise) until after I sent that. You know who I
meant. BTW, did you just by any chance ever work for me at the PME Lab in
Hawaii ?

Hi Howard,

Hmmm, how to answer that. Did that fellow remind you of me?

Well, to cut to the chase, I was SUBLANT, USS Holland AS-32, Nuclear
Navy; and as far as I know, the closest point of approach would have
been Guam (aside from our time in the yards at Bremerton, across the
water from where I live now).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

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

Standing-wave current phase changes hardly at all up and
down a stub with losses or a wire 1/2WL dipole.

That is correct to the same extent that t in the equation above "changes
hardly at all" with time.

t changes hardly at all referenced to the source current
phase which is what we are talking about. Please don't
try to feign ignorance of that fact. What I don't get is
why people like you have to distort the technical facts.
What do you possibly have to gain through distortion and
diversion?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

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

Standing-wave current phase changes hardly at all up and
down a stub with losses or a wire 1/2WL dipole.

That is correct to the same extent that t in the equation above "changes
hardly at all" with time.

The phase is referenced to the source phase, as it is in EZNEC,
but you already knew that and just want to perform your usual
diversions away from the technical facts.

I have said at least a dozen times that the current phase
I am talking about is the same as EZNEC reports. If you don't
like what EZNEC reports, take it up with Roy.

For those who don't understand Jim's diversion above, EZNEC
sets t=zero as a reference and then reports the phase. Jim
knows that and is just trying to hoodwink the uninitiatated.
His motives for such remain a mystery.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com