On 1 Dec, 07:02, Gene Fuller wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:
It is straightforward.
just fundamental common knowledge.
it is common to arrive at the same result using different means; they tend to
confirm that each is correct (like checking a proof as in QED).

Are you new around here???

Debates over common, straightforward, fundamental items are the
lifeblood for most of the endless threads on RRAA.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene'
Who ever he is he is a breath of fresh air amoung the
pseudo experts that we have here. My hope is that he
stays around longer than Dr Davis did in the face of
incessant hand waving, stone throwing and without substance.
Those who perceive them selves as experts and are now
reduced to stammering nonsence when challenged to move
away from just stringing words together and to provide
something of substance with respect to the debate
As yet there has been nothing presented to refute the
mathematical explanation provided that supports Cecil's
position.Thus a lot of people will have to take new
positions at some distance from the salt on the table
to make room for Dan and Cecil to move closer .
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG (uk)

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:16:52 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

My hope is that he
stays around longer than Dr Davis did in the face of
incessant hand waving, stone throwing and without substance.

Hi Art,

Your selective memory is in overdrive with this posting, you have
conveniently forgotten the contention of his embarrassing error in
misattribution. What you write following, similarly reveals errors
your mind's sieve fails to sift out.

Let's put two firmly held (and "mathematically proven") beliefs
together:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:29:31 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:
I am suspicious of anyone's motives who says he believes in
an impossible 3 nS delay through a huge loading coil
and
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:23:49 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
The "delayed" current travels through the 53 foot coil from end to end in
1.615m/3*10E8 m/s = 5.4 nsec

This is the supportive evidence YOU explicitly accept!

As yet there has been nothing presented to refute the
mathematical explanation provided that supports Cecil's
position.

Oh for shame Arthur! You don't actually read content, but clearly
your mantra is the "enemy of my foe is my ally." This philosophical
bedwarming should have you wondering who gets to be on top.

Dan's math refutes Cecil's. The comedy is that even though they have
independently made different errors, come to separate and different
solutions with nearly identical conclusions, they both "prove" the
same thing mathemagically. You, on the other hand, manage to do the
math wrong two different ways to prove things too! So in that sense
they are kindred spirits, unfortunately, in a nest of three, two would
roll the third out as soon as momma left for more worms.

This is not a math problem.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 1 Dec, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:16:52 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

My hope is that he
stays around longer than Dr Davis did in the face of
incessant hand waving, stone throwing and without substance.

Hi Art,

Your selective memory is in overdrive with this posting, you have
conveniently forgotten the contention of his embarrassing error in
misattribution. What you write following, similarly reveals errors
your mind's sieve fails to sift out.

Let's put two firmly held (and "mathematically proven") beliefs
together:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:29:31 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:
I am suspicious of anyone's motives who says he believes in
an impossible 3 nS delay through a huge loading coil
and
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:23:49 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
The "delayed" current travels through the 53 foot coil from end to end in
1.615m/3*10E8 m/s = 5.4 nsec

This is the supportive evidence YOU explicitly accept!

As yet there has been nothing presented to refute the
mathematical explanation provided that supports Cecil's
position.

Oh for shame Arthur! You don't actually read content, but clearly
your mantra is the "enemy of my foe is my ally." This philosophical
bedwarming should have you wondering who gets to be on top.

Dan's math refutes Cecil's. The comedy is that even though they have
independently made different errors, come to separate and different
solutions with nearly identical conclusions, they both "prove" the
same thing mathemagically. You, on the other hand, manage to do the
math wrong two different ways to prove things too! So in that sense
they are kindred spirits, unfortunately, in a nest of three, two would
roll the third out as soon as momma left for more worms.

This is not a math problem.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

O.k.Now you have that off your chest the way is clear for you to point
out the errors and what is needed to correct them.It is substance
that the group craves for in this debate and you are just unravelling
in the corner to justify a reason for you to be involved tho having
nothing to offer. For goodness sake, respond to Dan and stop talking
about three men in a bed which apparently tittilates your imagination.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:51:39 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

O.k.Now you have that off your chest the way is clear for you to point
out the errors and what is needed to correct them.

Hi Arthur,

If you read postings, you would have seen that several times.

For goodness sake, respond to Dan

You wouldn't know his name if I hadn't already responded many times!
Please, do pay attention. ;-)

Your weak appeal reminds me of a moment in "How Green Was My Valley"
(one of those stories set in that land you left and written by a
nemesis Richard Llewellyn) where Cyfartha urges Dai Bando into a
fight, but doesn't want to risk a punch to his own nose:
"Tis a coward I am. But I will hold your coat."

There is a lesson to be had from Dai Bando concerning a schoolmaster
whipping poor Huw, not for being stupid, but for Huw being poor and
daring to seek education. Dai Bando confronts the schoolmaster:

Dai Bando: "How would you go about taking the measurement of a stick?"

Mr. Jonas: "Why, by its length."

Dai Bando: "And how would you measure a man who would use a stick on a
boy one-third his size? Now, you are good in the use of a stick, but
boxing is my subject, according to the rules laid down by the good
Marques of Queensberry... And happy I am to pass on my knowledge to
you. "

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 1 Dec, 10:28, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:51:39 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

O.k.Now you have that off your chest the way is clear for you to point
out the errors and what is needed to correct them.

Hi Arthur,

If you read postings, you would have seen that several times.

For goodness sake, respond to Dan

You wouldn't know his name if I hadn't already responded many times!
Please, do pay attention. ;-)

Your weak appeal reminds me of a moment in "How Green Was My Valley"
(one of those stories set in that land you left and written by a
nemesis Richard Llewellyn) where Cyfartha urges Dai Bando into a
fight, but doesn't want to risk a punch to his own nose:
"Tis a coward I am. But I will hold your coat."

You pick a very poor place to talk about cowardice!
At that time Mr Kennedy Snr stated that islands of Britain
could not possibly stave off the armies that had overun Europe
So it was decided to film 'How green is my valley' in California
in its entirety, staving off any possibility of having to take
on the Nazis as Churchill called them. Fortunately the US was
willing to hold on to our coats
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk)
snip

Marques of Queensberry... And happy I am to pass on my knowledge to
you. "

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:56:55 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

You pick a very poor place to talk about cowardice!
At that time Mr Kennedy Snr stated that islands of Britain
could not possibly stave off the armies that had overun Europe

Hi Arthur,

This week in class I learned from Ambassador Thomas Graham that
Hitler's second in command came to England and asked Neville
Chamberlain to reject Hitler's conditions for moving into
Czechoslovakia. He informed Chamberlain that the German High Command
was ready to topple Hitler if England showed strength.

We all know the rest of the story....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"This week in class I learned from Ambassador Thomas Graham that
Hitler`s second in command came to England and asked Neville Chamberlain
to reject Hitler`s conditions for moving into Czechoslovakia.

That`s shocking! The Munich surrender followed, if my memory is correct,
and almost the whole world world knew that it would not result in peace
in our times! To speculate that the German high cpmmand was ready to
dump Hitler if only England were ready to show some spine! Didn`t
Chamberlain have others in the British Government to consult with?
History repeats. Surely Bush should have looked farther for consultation
before invading Iraq with so little support.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 1 Dec, 12:44, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:56:55 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

You pick a very poor place to talk about cowardice!
At that time Mr Kennedy Snr stated that islands of Britain
could not possibly stave off the armies that had overun Europe

Hi Arthur,

This week in class I learned from Ambassador Thomas Graham that
Hitler's second in command came to England and asked Neville
Chamberlain to reject Hitler's conditions for moving into
Czechoslovakia. He informed Chamberlain that the German High Command
was ready to topple Hitler if England showed strength.

We all know the rest of the story....

Yup. He was found to be insane and put in the Tower.
Germany did not want interference by Gt Britain.
In September 3rd 1939 Gt Britain was alone in
declaring war against Germanies gigantic armies.
That is what you have to do if you are the Worlds
policeman. Doing what is right regardless of the consequences
Pity the U.S. is unable to do the same.
Think how many countries the US government has
invaded since they took on the job and it looks
like there is more to come. Freedom fighters from
all over the World knew that there was a place to
go for the defence of freedom,and they came and
joined with us. Front and centre were the Polish
fighters with out which the British homeland
was in danger.The American ambassador fled to
home soil while the King and Queen stayed put.
It was a couple of years before the U.S. had
to join the fray and there was a Country still
there that they could join to carry on the fight.
It wasn't easy during those times but the British
held fast and resolute.
And nobody can take those proud times away that away.

Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG (uk)




73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC