On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:16:52 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

If standing-wave current is all that exists, EZNEC faithfully
reports the amplitude and phase of the standing-wave current.

It would appear that our author has some doubt about the statement
above to have prefaced it with "if." A grammarian would point out
that there is no corresponding "then." As this doubt is obviously a
contorted product of tension, I won't look for spelling errors that
Cecil would expect me to find.

If traveling-wave current is all that exists, EZNEC faithfully
reports the amplitude and phase of the traveling-wave current.

Again, the same nagging doubt - "if" indeed.

We can summarily answer that doubt by immediately dismissing it. There
is no such thing as standing-wave or traveling-wave current. The
statements above with the doubting "if" stripped out would read:

The current found in the solution of the standing-wave is all that
exists, EZNEC faithfully reports the amplitude and phase of that
current.

The current found in the solution of the traveling-wave is all
that exists, EZNEC faithfully reports the amplitude and
phase of that current.

Again, drilling down yields another silver plate of low hanging fruit.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
It would appear that our author has some doubt about the statement
above to have prefaced it with "if." A grammarian would point out
that there is no corresponding "then."

Be sure to pull the cover over that hole you are digging
for yourself since you will shortly be too embarrassed to
show your face in public. :-)

There
is no such thing as standing-wave or traveling-wave current.

Good grief, Richard, are you really willing to sacrifice
your technical integrity in support of your guru idols?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:

...
It would appear that our author has some doubt about the statement
above to have prefaced it with "if." A grammarian would point out
that there is no corresponding "then." As this doubt is obviously a
contorted product of tension, I won't look for spelling errors that
Cecil would expect me to find.
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

The majority of your text has turned to attacking personalities instead
of attacking ignorance, "wifes' tales", inaccuracies, mis-calculations, etc.

Not only is this boring, it is plain disgusting. My gawd man, step back
for a moment or two and get a hold of yourself.

When you play the Shakespearian-antagonist in this comedic melodrama, I
find it amusing and entertaining (if sometimes trying.)

Come back to reality man ... you ain't done nothing yet which we have
not all been guilty of at one time or another. I enjoy the debate and
the flurry of "boning up on smith charts", don't ruin it for the rest of
us ... since I have adopted Arts' "Gaussian Theory", I have to keep iron
objects away from my antenna, thats' bad enough! Let us who would like
to have some fun--have it! grin

A lot of this is above my head, I have to strive to get the tools to
understand it--isn't that how it was meant to be when we entered the
ranks of amateur radio. I don't want a "Radio Oracle(s)" in r.r.a.a who
tells me of visions or "all is already known", it just ruins the
mistique, adventure and technical challenge which drew me here ... of
course, you are chatting with a fellow which used to listed to "theater
radio" on SW--"Only the Shadow knows!"

Besides, it's Christmas!

Regards,
JS

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:11:49 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

The majority of your text has turned to attacking personalities

Personal advice from the anonymous. More irony than value there; and
you could as easily be Ossama Bin Forgotten wishing us Deadly
Christmas and a Satan hugging New Year muttered under your beard.

Others might teach me about manners, but they haven't weighed in, have
they? They would put the substance of their names behind their
lesson, and they would have a reputation of civil discourse in
contrast to mine. It's happened before, but you and Cecil aren't
standing in that long line.

Not only is this boring, it is plain disgusting. My gawd man, step back
for a moment or two and get a hold of yourself.

As for being bored? This has been a grind, certainly; 600+ postings
informs us all of that! [Talk about the bleeding obvious. Reggie
would have his thumb in your eye.] You getting bored, however, speaks
only to your own veiled hedonism. Your moral balance is seized with
the rust of anonymity.

Want to move away from personalities? Try participating with
technical comments or providing data. Cecil abandoned it with his
claim of being hounded with 20 questions. How many more than 20
questions litter this thread from him? How much data arrived from
those 20 questions? Did you find yourself informed during that
interchange? Did none of them raise your interest to engage your own
participation? Was there anything in their relation to the
measurement that revealed success or failure? Did you find anything
"personal" in their revelation? Did you laud or challenge that
enquiry or its analysis? Did it elicit any questions? Frankly, you
show very little interest in these topics except when the
entertainment becomes a bit too purple. It has, no doubt about it;
but you don't even have the critic's qualifications to do anything
more than phone in a vote to American Idol and hope Simon doesn't pick
up the line.

You chose to respond to the comedy, and stood silent in the exchange
of idea and information. No, I don't see any lesson offered here by
you that you don't need learning first.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
...
Personal advice from the anonymous. More irony than value there; and
you could as easily be Ossama Bin Forgotten wishing us Deadly
Christmas and a Satan hugging New Year muttered under your beard.


As Cecil, so eloquently, pointed out--others will know you by your
posts, they'll figure me out too ...

Others might teach me about manners, but they haven't weighed in, have
they? They would put the substance of their names behind their
lesson, and they would have a reputation of civil discourse in
contrast to mine. It's happened before, but you and Cecil aren't
standing in that long line.


Yes, shallow "Hero Worship" is at the core of your being ... we already
knew that, you kiss the gods butt, they kiss yours--sometimes ...


As for being bored? This has been a grind, certainly; 600+ postings
informs us all of that! [Talk about the bleeding obvious. Reggie
would have his thumb in your eye.] You getting bored, however, speaks
only to your own veiled hedonism. Your moral balance is seized with
the rust of anonymity.


I pity newbie hams, they have to figure out that your kind can be easily
avoided and the hobby can still be enjoyable, too bad we lose a few that
can't stomach the BS ...

Want to move away from personalities? Try participating with
technical comments or providing data. Cecil abandoned it with his
claim of being hounded with 20 questions. How many more than 20
questions litter this thread from him? How much data arrived from
those 20 questions? Did you find yourself informed during that
interchange? Did none of them raise your interest to engage your own
participation? Was there anything in their relation to the
measurement that revealed success or failure? Did you find anything
"personal" in their revelation? Did you laud or challenge that
enquiry or its analysis? Did it elicit any questions? Frankly, you
show very little interest in these topics except when the
entertainment becomes a bit too purple. It has, no doubt about it;
but you don't even have the critic's qualifications to do anything
more than phone in a vote to American Idol and hope Simon doesn't pick
up the line.


Frankly, and certainly, at this point, I do not feel accustomed enough
to a smith chart, the "nuiances" of reflected waves nor the esoteric
concepts which are being argued--I am attempting to come up to speed.
Nothing wrong with being a student and that is what I am in this
debate/exchange/discourse/argument/etc.

You chose to respond to the comedy, and stood silent in the exchange
of idea and information. No, I don't see any lesson offered here by
you that you don't need learning first.


Richard, if you could not have made it as a test tech, you could have
always joined the circus as a clown, I am sure you would have been quite
successful! I only wonder how clowns of the Shakespearian era dressed? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

3's right back at 'ya--good buddy,
and regards,
JS