Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

In my course of study, I was forced to take a class in human
psychology--I hated it--its' use I could not fathom, to one engaged in
the technical aspects of "the real world" it seemed a waste.

However, that class was all about running into the likes of you.

You are an actor on a stage, yet we all wish to view NO performance.
You are a writer, in your imagination--yet we have no interest in your
book. You are all important--to yourself, but you have NO importance to me.

You are a spoiled child who will even accept "negative attention" as
opposed to "no attention at all"--and in all actuality--that is what you
truly deserve.

You are a mess man, get a hold of yourself ... anyone who would even
lend a hand in your support is an idiot--OWN IT MAN! Only an idiot can
befriend you at the present time--grow up ...

Now,
3's :-)

JS

John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

In my course of study, I was forced to take a class in human
psychology--I hated it--its' use I could not fathom, to one engaged in
the technical aspects of "the real world" it seemed a waste.

However, that class was all about running into the likes of you.

Don't sweat it, "John". As you've stated, you couldn't fathom "its' use."

You are an actor on a stage, yet we all wish to view NO performance.

Who's "we", "John"? For whom do you speak?

You
are a writer, in your imagination--yet we have no interest in your
book.

Who is "we"? I find Richard's posts quite entertaining.

You are all important--to yourself, but you have NO importance to
me.

Get over it, "John". It isn't all about you, whoever you are.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

Heil, you are an idiot. You are, perhaps the biggest idiot I have run
into in the news groups, and that is saying something, Richard is
second--only to you ... ROFOL

Keep on truckin', if persistence counts, you have one thing going for
you. :-)

JS

Jim Lux wrote:

The circuits I am thinking of sample a length of line (NOT A
POINT) so the sample records average voltage (or current) from a
period of time.
Many simple reflectometer designs do indeed sample the line over a
short length of line, and that short length may be 100mm or more.
Ideally, they would take the sample at a point. (Since a point has
zero length, I can't quickly think of a sampling technique that truly
takes a point sample.)

The voltage sample is easy... measure the voltage using an infinitely
thin probe.

The current sample is measured in a similar way by measuring the
magnetic field over a infinitely small segment of the conductor. There
are sensitivity issues or bandwidth issues, but there are lots of very,
very small magnetic field probe schemes around.

Agreed; we're discussing principles here, and the issue of single-point
sampling is mostly a practical one.

In principle, we can always choose a method of sampling that doesn't
require a finite length of line. Within the limits of our skill and
imagination, we can also make the current and voltage pickups physically
smaller, so that they occupy less length along the line. Or if skill and
imagination fail, we can shift the whole discussion to longer and longer
wavelengths, to make the error as small as we like. It may not be
practical, but no general principles are being broken.

The issue of single-point sampling is interesting in its own right, but
in this much wider discussion it is only a minor detail. In order to
move on with the wider discussion, let's agree to assume that
single-point sampling always *can* be achieved, within the accuracy that
we require.



If one says, "point sample" == "less than 1/1000 wavelength), I think
it's actually pretty straight forward, certainly for 100 MHz or less.
(3mm is 1/1000 lambda).

Even for practical instruments, this particular source of error is
usually quite small. At any one frequency, it is always possible to null
the bridge in the reverse direction, so that the voltage and current
samples (as described by Cecil) will cancel. How well the cancellation
holds over a wider frequency band will depend on the choice of bridge
circuit and the way it is constructed.


--

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

John Smith wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Heil, you are an idiot. You are, perhaps the biggest idiot I have run
into in the news groups, and that is saying something...

But we are left wondering what it is that is being said. After all,
you're an anonymous CBer who chastises others from the shadows. You
haven't the courage of your convictions, "John".

...Richard is
second--only to you ... ROFOL

Richard is quite obviously an intelligent person. That alone seems
enough to chafe you.

Keep on truckin', if persistence counts, you have one thing going for
you. :-)

Oh, I'm persistent. I can punctuate and spell. I'm interested in
antennas and find your stuff distracting. I find it amusing that
someone of your ilk attacks Richard. I've learned much from reading his
posts and those of W7EL. W8JI's material was most helpful in installing
a beverage antenna. On the other hand, I've never learned anything
useful from you.

Dave K8MN

Roy Lewallen wrote:


My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.


Isn't that like lossless wires, perfect grounds, and other such?

The conditions that cause an object to slow and stop in real life are
the proof of the law. To the contrary, it proves Newton correct. The
forces act just as they should.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Dave Heil wrote:

...
But we are left wondering what it is that is being said. After all,
you're an anonymous CBer who chastises others from the shadows. You
haven't the courage of your convictions, "John".

10-fer 'gud buddy!

...Richard is second--only to you ... ROFOL

Richard is quite obviously an intelligent person. That alone seems
enough to chafe you.

LOL! I am at a loss for words ...


Keep on truckin', if persistence counts, you have one thing going for
you. :-)



Oh, I'm persistent. I can punctuate and spell. I'm interested in
antennas and find your stuff distracting. I find it amusing that
someone of your ilk attacks Richard. I've learned much from reading his
posts and those of W7EL. W8JI's material was most helpful in installing
a beverage antenna. On the other hand, I've never learned anything
useful from you.

My goodness! Keep up the good work, you parents are pulling for you--I
am sure ...

Dave K8MN

Time to hammer down, gonna leave this clown-town ...

3's 'gud buddy!,
JS

Dave Heil wrote:

[...]

Without a personality to attack, the "fish out of water" become quite
apparent ...

JS

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Problem is that it conflicts with the predictions made by the power
propagation model. (The politically correct name is the Joules/sec
propagation model.) That model shows that only a single reflection
of power is needed to explain the whole thing. Of course in some
cases the wave of power has to figure out how to turn around and go
back the other direction after it's been cancelled in order to
conserve energy. (A problem it wouldn't have to solve had it not
violated it in the first place.) Admittedly, some of the details
have yet to be worked out. :-)


Wow Jim, you need to repeat Fields and Waves 310. :-)
You have misunderstood virtually every principle
of the wave reflection model.


I wouldn't presume to take credit for any of the above. I learned it
on r.r.a.a. from someone who I think needs to take Fields and Waves
1. :-)


If you are talking about me, you have either misunderstood
what I said or you enjoy bearing false witness. Here's a quote
from my 2005 magazine article at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

Hi Cecil -

Yes, I'm very familiar with that article. You've already posted a
link to it dozens of times on this newsgroup. It very clearly
illustrates exactly those thing which I may have somewhat more
'colorfully' restated above, and more. It includes equations with
variables for forward and reflected power all throughout, a reference
to a supposed "4th mechanism of reflection" (that's the magical way in
which waves of power and energy change direction), and illustrations
with arrows named Pref showing how power is reflected at impedance
discontinuities.

Back when our corresponence was more cordial, I advised you not to
write those things. And now you'd like to deny having done it; all
the while portraying me as a liar. You're beautiful, man.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Yes, I'm very familiar with that article. You've already posted a link
to it dozens of times on this newsgroup. It very clearly illustrates
exactly those thing which I may have somewhat more 'colorfully' restated
above, and more. It includes equations with variables for forward and
reflected power all throughout,

Yes, forward and reflected power measured at a *FIXED* measurement
point. There is no "power flow" anywhere in my article. Energy
does the flowing. Power is the measurement at a *FIXED* measurement
point of that energy flow past that *FIXED* point. Did you note
the use of the word, "FIXED"?

Even though all my references, including the IEEE Dictionary
allow for "power flow", I avoided it in my article as a favor
to you.

a reference to a supposed "4th mechanism
of reflection" (that's the magical way in which waves of power and
energy change direction),

Yes, that may be somewhat original and therefore frightening
for you. Galileo would have scared you to death. If, as Walter
C. Johnson says, interference can *cause* standing waves, it
can probably also cause reflections at an impedance discontinuity
through wave cancellation. You are going to have to do more
than wave your hands to prove otherwise. Not refusing to
answer my questions about my examples would be a good start.

Remember your absolute refusal to compute the total joules/sec
after the first internal reflection arrived at the thin-film
anti-reflective coating in my example? When you learn how to
properly manage irradiance, get back to us.

and illustrations with arrows named Pref
showing how power is reflected at impedance discontinuities.

No! No! No! Power is NOT reflected at an impedance discontinuity.
Those are Poynting vectors. Energy is reflected and that reflected
energy is measured and called "reflected power". Reflected power
is not moving. You continue to get it wrong. The reflected power
is acutally reflected energy measured flowing past a *FIXED* point
near the impedance discontinuity. There are joules in the reflected
wave. The joules in the reflected wave are measured flowing past
a *FIXED* measurement point. But, of course, I have explained
all of this to you before yet you continue bear false witness
after all these years.

Back when our corresponence was more cordial, I advised you not to write
those things. And now you'd like to deny having done it; all the while
portraying me as a liar. You're beautiful, man.

I changed my article just to make you happy. You obviously
have misunderstood, either through lack of processing power,
ignorance, or deliberately. I would guess it is deliberate.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com