Cecil Moore wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:
That is his "obvious" explanation. He should remove that from his
webpage as it is rather embarassing.

W8JI made a gross error in his measurement and
then tried to rationalize the impossible result.

Cecil:

How would you have like to be working at NASA, with this group; And, you
were the one responsible for not coverting kilometers to miles and
SMACKING that spacecraft we lost into Mars? ;-)

Crud, I've volunteered on serving on those soup-lines, would hate to
have seen ya' there. chuckle

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

AI4QJ wrote:

That is his "obvious" explanation. He should remove that from his
webpage as it is rather embarassing.


W8JI made a gross error in his measurement and
then tried to rationalize the impossible result.


Cecil:

How would you have like to be working at NASA, with this group; And, you
were the one responsible for not coverting kilometers to miles and
SMACKING that spacecraft we lost into Mars? ;-)


It wasn't km and miles, it was pounds and newtons AND
the error was that Lockheed Martin supplied the thrust data in pounds,
unlike the contractual requirement to supply it in Newtons (which is
what we at JPL have used for decades). The error wasn't caught because
the absolute magnitude of the force is very small, so the differences
from predict to observation were on the order of the measurement
uncertainty. (We're talking measuring the velocity to mm/sec and range
to mm, when its at Mars.)
I'd venture that anyone would find measuring distances to 1 part in 1E12
challenging...





Crud, I've volunteered on serving on those soup-lines, would hate to
have seen ya' there. chuckle

Regards,
JS

I hate to see Cecil and others criticizing Tom's (W8JI) measurements,
although I've certainly learned to expect this sort of response whenever
his theory is shown to be lacking. Tom does a careful job of making
measurements and he has good equipment. Most importantly, he's honest.
If someone finds an error with this measurement methodology or results,
he'll be the first one to correct it. But "finding an error" doesn't
mean just saying that his measurements fail to support a wild theory. It
means making careful measurements with good equipment and methodology
which give different results. I'm sure we'll never see this from Cecil.

Like I did some time ago, Tom has taken the time and trouble to make
measurements which simply confirm what established theory tell us. Then
Cecil and others respond by stating they're in error but haven't
presented any evidence to the contrary. (Sorry, hot air doesn't count as
evidence.) Any readers not astute enough to see the problem here
probably feel at home with astrology, homeopathy, and other alternative
disciplines that elicit belief without evidence.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Jim Lux wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

AI4QJ wrote:

That is his "obvious" explanation. He should remove that from his
webpage as it is rather embarassing.


W8JI made a gross error in his measurement and
then tried to rationalize the impossible result.


Cecil:

How would you have like to be working at NASA, with this group; And,
you were the one responsible for not coverting kilometers to miles and
SMACKING that spacecraft we lost into Mars? ;-)


It wasn't km and miles, it was pounds and newtons AND
the error was that Lockheed Martin supplied the thrust data in pounds,
unlike the contractual requirement to supply it in Newtons (which is
what we at JPL have used for decades). The error wasn't caught because
the absolute magnitude of the force is very small, so the differences
from predict to observation were on the order of the measurement
uncertainty. (We're talking measuring the velocity to mm/sec and range
to mm, when its at Mars.)
I'd venture that anyone would find measuring distances to 1 part in 1E12
challenging...





Crud, I've volunteered on serving on those soup-lines, would hate to
have seen ya' there. chuckle

Regards,
JS

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I hate to see Cecil and others criticizing Tom's (W8JI) measurements,

I know you hate to see your and Tom's errors exposed.
But you have already confessed that even EZNEC says
that standing-wave current phase is almost unchanging
all up and down a 1/2WL dipole.

Which means that your "measurement" using standing-
wave current to measure phase shift through a loading
coil is something that you are well aware is invalid -
yet you have asserted that you are standing by that same
(invalid) "measurement". What is your agenda?

It
means making careful measurements with good equipment and methodology
which give different results. I'm sure we'll never see this from Cecil.

On the contrary, I reported a ~25 nS delay through my
75m bugcatcher loading coil when it was loaded with
a 3600 ohm load. Although this is an estimate from
observing current waveforms, it is close enough to
prove that is could never be the 3 nS reported by W8JI.
W8JI's delay "measurement" is off by a magnitude. Your
phase "measurements" are completely meaningless.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Oh Gesus! You self masturbating idiot!!! (and, did anyone ever tell
you that looks disgusting in public???)

You are not God, this is NOT a catholic, I don't feel guilty and we are
not in a confessional!

NUFF SAID!

JS

Jim Lux wrote:

...
It wasn't km and miles, it was pounds and newtons AND
the error was that Lockheed Martin supplied the thrust data in pounds,
unlike the contractual requirement to supply it in Newtons (which is
what we at JPL have used for decades). The error wasn't caught because
the absolute magnitude of the force is very small, so the differences
from predict to observation were on the order of the measurement
uncertainty. (We're talking measuring the velocity to mm/sec and range
to mm, when its at Mars.)
I'd venture that anyone would find measuring distances to 1 part in 1E12
challenging...
...

Damn, well someone told me, at work, told me it was a kilo/miles problem
.... however, the difference you state resulted in the same, apparent,
outcome--so sue me roflol

I must say, predictable!

Regards,
JS