Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Your model can be as elaborate as you like, but
it always has to prove itself against the simple cases that we already
know about.

Since I am using the distributed network model proven
valid since before I was born, I don't have to defend
it. Please don't confuse my refusal to spend 36 hours
a day defending the distributed network model with the
validity of the distributed network model.

Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Really???? Just try your lumped inductance model on
a helical antenna and get back to us.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Your model can be as elaborate as you like, but it always has to
prove itself against the simple cases that we already know about.

Since I am using the distributed network model proven
valid since before I was born, I don't have to defend
it. Please don't confuse my refusal to spend 36 hours
a day defending the distributed network model with the
validity of the distributed network model.

Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Really???? Just try your lumped inductance model on
a helical antenna and get back to us.

Yet more stinking dishonest quoting from Cecil. What I ACTUALLY wrote
was:

"Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance. They work just fine, for all cases where the
dimensions of the circuit are very small with respect to the wavelength,
so that distributed effects and radiation are negligible. Where those
assumptions are no longer accurate, we can extend the simple model to
include some corrections. But the most important point is, we always
know that we're building up from a solid foundation."

There's no debating with that man. I've made my technical points, and
I'm out.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Really???? Just try your lumped inductance model on
a helical antenna and get back to us.

Yet more stinking dishonest quoting from Cecil. What I ACTUALLY wrote was:

"Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Yep, that's exactly as I quoted it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Earlier, I had written:
"Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance. They work just fine, for all cases where the
dimensions of the circuit are very small with respect to the wavelength,
so that distributed effects and radiation are negligible. Where those
assumptions are no longer accurate, we can extend the simple model to
include some corrections. But the most important point is, we always
know that we're building up from a solid foundation."

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Really???? Just try your lumped inductance model on
a helical antenna and get back to us.
Yet more stinking dishonest quoting from Cecil. What I ACTUALLY
wrote was:
"Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Yep, that's exactly as I quoted it.

Once could have been a mistake. Twice is deliberate, dishonest
manipulation.

The beauty of Usenet is that it's now on permanent record.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
... Where those
assumptions are no longer accurate, we can extend the simple model to
include some corrections. But the most important point is, we always
know that we're building up from a solid foundation."
...

In the profession which puts meat on my table, that/those are called
"magic numbers" and are a sure sign something is amiss, either with the
understanding of the problem(s), the methods or the person attempting
the solutions ...

Regards,
JS

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Once could have been a mistake. Twice is deliberate, dishonest
manipulation.

Absolutely nothing dishonest about it.

Once you make a mistake, Ian, it doesn't matter what
you say after the mistake. What I disagreed with was
your mistake and didn't bother quoting the rest. I
believe that is part of the netnews guidelines.

So I challenge you again. Given a two wavelength
slinky dipole, please use your lumped constant
model to predict the current in the antenna.

Of course, you cannot and will not do that.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Yep, that's exactly as I quoted it.

Once could have been a mistake. Twice is deliberate, dishonest
manipulation.

Ian, your first sentence was false and I responded to it.
No amount of words that you post after the first false
statement will make it true. There *are* glitches in the
standard circuit models for inductance and capacitance
because they do not agree with Maxwell's equations.
There was nothing dishonest about my replies. In fact,
I was just following netnews rules.

You said:
Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit
models for inductance and capacitance.

But there are glitches in that model so that is a false
statement to which I replied. Nothing you can say after
that statement will make it true.

I am sorry that you get so upset when challenged but
you are wrong about a lot of things.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Ian, I apologize for yanking your chain. It is a bad
habit of mine.

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Yep, that's exactly as I quoted it.

Once could have been a mistake. Twice is deliberate, dishonest
manipulation.

Ian, your first sentence was false and I responded to it.
No amount of words that you post after the first false
statement will make it true. There *are* glitches in the
standard circuit models for inductance and capacitance
because they do not agree with Maxwell's equations.
There was nothing dishonest about my replies. In fact,
I was just following netnews rules.

Continuing: If your model worked, W8JI would not have
measured a 3ns delay on 4 MHz through a 2" dia, 100 T,
10" long coil. It is, in fact, your flawed model that
allowed him to come to the false conclusions that he
did. And I notice your model got you in trouble because
you did not offer one word of objection to his obviously
impossible conclusions.

You guys are religiously addicted to models that do
not correspond to reality and it gets you into a lot
of trouble including passing false information along
to your naive readers.

It appears that we are on the verge of proving that a
3 ns delay through the above coil is impossible no
matter what your model says.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Earlier, I had written:
"Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance. They work just fine, for all cases where the
dimensions of the circuit are very small with respect to the wavelength,
so that distributed effects and radiation are negligible. Where those
assumptions are no longer accurate, we can extend the simple model to
include some corrections. But the most important point is, we always
know that we're building up from a solid foundation."

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Really???? Just try your lumped inductance model on
a helical antenna and get back to us.
Yet more stinking dishonest quoting from Cecil. What I ACTUALLY
wrote was:
"Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Yep, that's exactly as I quoted it.

Once could have been a mistake. Twice is deliberate, dishonest
manipulation.

The beauty of Usenet is that it's now on permanent record.



He's trying the old if-I'm-unreasonable-enough-I-can-get-him-to-quit-
posting routine. In other words, he's hoping you'll give up in anger.
I think it's about time to boycott Cecil - and his Sancho Panzas -
again. He makes no more sense than he ever did, and arguing with him
is a waste of energy anyway.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:

He's trying the old if-I'm-unreasonable-enough-I-can-get-him-to-quit-
posting routine. In other words, he's hoping you'll give up in anger.
I think it's about time to boycott Cecil - and his Sancho Panzas -
again. He makes no more sense than he ever did, and arguing with him
is a waste of energy anyway.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

It's useful to remember that in certain regions of and sub-cultures in
this country, the "winner" of a brawl or an argument is defined as the
last man standing. So all tactics are based on this goal. There's no
doubt this is the result being sought here.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL