RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)
-   -   Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/134404-rebuttal-richard-clarks-comments-my-chapter-19a.html)

Walter Maxwell June 22nd 08 05:33 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
RICHARD:



I've known you for a long time to be tough but fair. I've envied your depth of
knowledge in many areas of expertise. Which is why I entrusted you and others on
this thread with my Chapter 19A for an honest peer review. I expected to receive
a fair review from you that would fare well in proving my paper correct for
those who don't yet understand, or don't believe the principles involved.



However, instead of receiving a fair critique of my paper you trashed it with an
axe. Every criticism you made was not only negative, but clearly false. If I
didn't know you better I would conclude from your comments that you don't have a
clue concerning the operation of RF amplifiers.



Since you chose to denigrate my writing instead of giving it a fair critique,
why did you broadcast it on the news group instead of discussing your position
with me privately? Since you have broadcast it I have no choice but to defend my
position by rebutting each and every one of your false statements on this thread
for all to see.



Thus I'm repeating your comments with my responses to them to set the record
straight.



Richard says:



Hi All,

This is simply a quick overview from the separate threads that will
follow, each thread devoted to only one Step in the progression of
measurements Steps offered by Walt Maxwell in his upcoming release of
"Reflections III," Chapter 19A in particular.

I have been working off of three revisions of this work, and some
quotes may not be accurate. I will leave reconciliation of those to
others as this has been a long and exhaustive examination, and I don't
perceive any substantive issues shifted along the way. Not all steps
will be critiqued as not all contain response beyond my noting they
contained simple reports of fact that did not merit challenging. A
full article length version containing all discussion of this will be
available.

The discussion threads follow immediately.



Walt says:

The numbered steps are quotes from Chapter 19A



Step 1.
Using a Kenwood TS-830S transceiver as the RF source, the tuning and
loading of the pi-network are adjusted to deliver all the available
power into a 50 + j0-ohm load with the grid drive adjusted to deliver
the maximum of 100 watts at 4 MHz, thus establishing the area of the
RF power window at the input of the pi-network, resistance RLP at the
plate, and the slope of the load line. The output source resistance of
the amplifier in this condition will later be shown to be 50 ohms. In
this condition the DC plate voltage is 800 v and plate current is 260
ma. DC input power is therefore 800 x 0.26 a = 208 w. Readings on
the Bird 43 wattmeter indicate 100 watts forward and zero watts
reflected. (100 watts is the maximum RF output power available at this
drive level.) From here on the grid drive is left undisturbed, and the
pi-network controls are left undisturbed until Step 10.



Richard says:
There are several points in response he
1.The load specification ( 50 + j0-ohm) is for full output power, not
some portion of it. This is a minor point.



Walt says: This is NOT a minor point. The output power at 100 watts was
specified as the reference power, not the full output power the xmtr could
produce.



2.Maximum power from a TS-830S can be as high as 120W, could be lower
depending on finals' service life. This is a minor point.



Walt says: This is also NOT a minor point. The TS-830S used for the measurements
is capable of producing more than 130 watts, but 100 watts was used to assure
stability that could be compromised if running the xmtr at its full output.



3.Rated typical Plate Current for the 6146B is 220mA. Running more at
higher voltage (typical is 750V) to obtain less power sounds like the
amp is being strained to produce 100W.



Walt says: Rated plate current is irrelevant here. The plate voltage in this
xmtr is inherently 800v when the plate current is 260 ma. Running more than 750v
to obtain less power is an absurd and unwarranted statement. The amp was NOT
being strained to produce 100 w, because its full output exceeds 130 w.



4."Available Power" is 208W. Efficiency and other considerations
certainly lower this, but it would appear that efficiency has been
red-lined at 48% by this step's assertions. The red-line at 48%
efficiency may reveal the aforementioned strain.



Walt says: Available power is NOT 208w. 208w is the DC input power. The true
available power was 100w because the grid drive was set to allow only 100w to be
delivered with loading adjusted to deliver all the available power at that drive
level. This condition is clearly stated in Step 1.



Step 2.
The amplifier is now powered down and the load resistance RL is
measured across the input terminals of the resonant pi-network tank
circuit (from plate to ground) with an HP-4815 Vector Impedance Meter.
The resistance is found to be approximately 1400 ohms. Because the
amplifier was adjusted to deliver the maximum available power of 100
watts prior to the resistance measurement, resistance RLP looking into
the plate (upstream from the network terminals) is also approximately
1400 ohms. Accordingly, a non-reactive 1400-ohm resistor is now
connected across the input terminals of the pi-network tank circuit
and source resistance ROS is measured looking rearward into the output
terminals of the network. Resistance ROS was found to be 50 ohms.



Richard says:
Points in response:
1.This is actually two steps: one measurement made from the plate
looking towards the load; one measurement made from the output jack
looking towards plate.
2.The measurement at the plate without a powered tube unloads the Q of
the plate tuning. Does this unloaded Q present a false reading of the
transformed load resistance?



Walt says: No, it does not.


Richard continues:
3.The load line with 800 v / 0.26 a / 2 = 1539 Ohms.

Walt says: The above statement is false. The load line is not determined by the
DC components-it is determined by the AC components using the Chaffee analysis
procedure.



Richard continues:

4."Maximum Available Power" has not been established, only arrived at
by inference. It could be more, it could be less. Being less is
unlikely given the subsequent demonstrated power delivered to the load
being 100W; but it is suspect that exactly 100W is all that could be
obtained. The point, however, is that such attention to "Available
Power" is an unnecessary elaboration to the point of taking these
steps.



Walt says: Maximum available power was NOT arrived at by inference. It WAS
established in Step 1 by setting the grid drive so that maximum available power
with that setting was 100w. Richard's statement that attention to available
power is an unnecessary elaboration is totally false, because a constant
available power is required as a reference for all the measurements. It is
clearly stated in one of my earlier statements that the xmtr was capable of
delivering more than 130w.



Richard continues:

5.The measurement at the output towards the plate similarly unloads
the plate tuning Q when the 50 Ohms is removed to make the
measurement. Does this unloaded Q present a false reading of the
transformed plate resistance?



Walt says: No, it does not. This method is standard procedure in making initial
adjustments of the tank circuit of newly manufactured xmtrs prior to applying
the plate voltage.


Richard continues:
6.The measurements made in both directions confirm the capacity of an
unloaded circuit to perform the transformations in a symmetric fashion
(a good test), but you have not tested if the issue of loaded Q is a
factor or not. If you were to replace the 1400 Ohm resistor at the
plate tuning input (at the plate connection) with a 1000 Ohm resistor,
would the 50 Ohms follow that shift? By how much?

Walt says: Yes it would. If this pi-network is adjusted such that a 1400-ohm
resistor at the plate connection would yield 50 ohms at the output of the
network a 1000-ohm resistor replacing the 1400-ohm, the resistance appearing at
the output would be 35.71 ohms


Step 7.
Due to the 2.88:1 mismatch at the load, neglecting network losses and
the small change in plate current resulting from the mismatch,
approximately the same mismatch appears between RLP and ZL at the
input of the pi-network. Consequently, the change in load impedance
changed the network input resistance RL from 1400 ohms to complex ZL ~
800 - j1000 ohms, measured with the Vector Impedance Meter using the
method described in Step 2. To verify the impedance measurement of ZL
the phase delay of the network was measured using an HP-8405 Vector
Voltmeter and found to be 127°. Using this value of phase delay the
input impedance ZL was calculated using two different methods; one
yielding 792 - j1003 ohms, the other yielding 794.6 - j961.3 ohms,
thus verifying the accuracy of the measurement. However, because grid
voltage EC, grid drive Eg, and plate voltage EB are left unchanged,
resistance RLP at the plate has remained at approximately 1400 ohms,
leaving a mismatch between RLP and ZL at the input of the pi-network.
As stated above, this value of ZL yields the substantially the same
mismatch to plate resistance RLP as that between the output impedance
of the pi-network and the 17.98 + j8.77-ohm load, i.e., 2.88:1. This
mismatch at the network input results in less power delivered into the
network, and thus to the load, a decrease in the area of the RF window
at the network input, and a change in the slope of the loadline. (It
must be remembered that the input and output mismatches contribute
only to mismatch loss, which does not result in power delivered and
then lost somewhere in dissipation. As we will see in Step 8, the
mismatch at the input of the pi-network results only in a reduced
delivery of source power proportional to the degree of mismatch.)



Richard says:
Points in response:
1.We enter into a key remark in the first sentence: neglecting
network losses and the small change in plate current resulting from
the mismatch. By this statement the subordinate thesis being offered:
output source resistance of the RF power amplifier is non-dissipative
is wholly invalidated.



Walt says: The last sentence above is totally false. The increase in plate
current due to the mismatch causing the pi-network to be detuned does cause the
increase in plate dissipation, but plate dissipation occurs only in the
cathode-to-plate resistance, which is totally irrelevant to the output source
resistance, which IS non-dissipative.



Richard says:

The observation that the plate current changes
(and presumably plate voltage has not, unconfirmed in the protocol)



Walt says: Not so. While the plate current increased to 290 ma. The voltage
decreased to 760v, clearly stated in Step 9.



Richard continues:
through the agency of mismatch must necessarily admit that the plate
resistance has also changed if only because it has been explicitly
admitted to through the dismissed current change.
2.To whatever degree (as dictated by the phase of the mismatch), plate
dissipation must also change. This is the common experience of
literally thousands of Amateur radio operators and has been commented
upon and reported for generations when through the unfortunate aspect
of phase, it becomes a destructive dissipation.



Walt says: Of course the plate dissipation changed with the increase in plate
current caused by the detuning of the network. But as said before, this plate
dissipation is irrelevant to the output source resistance.



Richard continues:



Such reports often
attain dramatic legendary status, if only for the afflicted amplifier
owner (who may enjoy comedic celebrity among his peers).
3.Moving on to subsequent sentences, the reported values of complex
load resistance (792 - j1003 Ohms) seen from the plate looking through
tuning towards the new, mismatched load confirms that the plate
resistance must be impacted. If, as reported, the plate resistance
remains at 1400 Ohms, then there is a mismatch which is admitted to in
the text of the original. The final argument is based upon mismatch
loss, which from the perspective of the load, is that amount of power
not seen, but not lost by dissipation. That much is true from the
perspective of the load. The same would be true if we replaced the
plate tuning with a large resistor which would also reduce power to
the load, so such an appeal has nothing to do with the argument of the
subordinate thesis: output source resistance of the RF power amplifier
is non-dissipative. The nature of this particular plate mismatch
affirms the current indication, and rejects the conclusion of
non-dissipation (which is characteristically, and artificially
constrained to being exothermic when through phasing it could as
easily be endothermic).



Walt says: Richard is totally off base in attempting to correlate the plate
dissipation with the output source resistance at the output terminals of the
network. They are totally unrelated.



Richard says:



4.A more careful protocol would allow for phase by lengthening the
13.5° length of coax to 103.5° (or more but well less than 180°) and
carefully noting the new plate current. In fact, other lengths should
be used to draw a more rigorous correlation.



Walt says: Richard ignores the fact stated later in my paper that I have already
made measurements with several different lengths of coax that also verify the
measurements reported here to be correct.



Step 8.
Readings on a Bird 43 power meter now indicate 95w forward and 20w
reflected, meaning only 75 watts are now delivered by the source and
absorbed in the mismatched load. The 20w reflected power remains in
the coax, and adds to the 75 watts delivered by the source to
establish the total forward power of 95w.


Richard continues:
Point in response:
The Bird 43 indications only reveal mismatch loss (unstated as 5W if
we are to return to the concept of Available Power, which as a
rhetorical point has been uncharacteristically discarded) which is
only tangentially related to the subordinate thesis: output source
resistance of the RF power amplifier is non-dissipative. Step 7 is
sufficient to illustrate the thesis.

Walt says: The above paragraph is totally without merit, and only serves to
confuse the reader.


Step 9.
We now compare the measured power delivered with the calculated power,
using the power transmission coefficient, 1 - ?2. The calculated power
delivered is: 100w × (1 - ?2) = 76.6w, compared to the 75w indicated
by the Bird wattmeter. However, because the new load impedance is less
than the original 50 ohms, and also reactive, the amplifier is now
overloaded and the pi-network is detuned from resonance. Consequently,
the plate current has increased from 260 to 290 ma, plate voltage has
dropped to 760 v, and DC input power has increased from 208 w to 220.4
w.



Richard says:
Points in response:
1.This is a surprising departure from reporting in the progression of
the protocol. We now find current and voltage reports where formerly
they were either dismissed or neglected. However, we will take these
as they are reported here.



Walt says: Voltage and current were NOT dismissed or neglected. They were
presented in Step 9 as the natural progression in explaining the test procedure.



Richard continues:

2.It appears that the calculated power and the reported power agree,
this is not directly expressed, but neither these remarks are not
stated as being in conflict. Given the editorialization that inhabits
the protocol in general, these remarks are remarkably dry and
unconnected.
3.Following, with the editorial comment that the amplifier is now
overloaded, the connotation is necessarily a rejection of the thesis:
output source resistance of the RF power amplifier is non-dissipative;
otherwise the condition giving rise to the overload would be of no
particular consequence nor interest.



Walt says: The amplifier was overloaded because the load impedance was less than
that with the reference load of 50 + j0 ohms. Richard still fails to understand
that the dissipation in the cathode-to-plate resistance is totally unrelated to
the output source resistance, because the output source resistance is determined
only by the voltage-current ratio appearing at the output terminals of the
network.



Richard continues:

Rather, the cautionary should
have been the amplifier is not delivering its Maximum Available Power
(once again, having raised this topic early on, it is curiously
missing as a rhetorical observation). The dialectic seems to have
promoted the subordinate thesis while the data in the observations
have destroyed it.



Walt says: The last statement above is totally false.



4.The detuned state is an untested conjecture. Its inclusion adds
nothing without both a rigorous examination and explaining the
speculative correlation as causation.

Walt says: There is no speculation or untested conjecture here. The fact that
the network was detuned by the mismatched load containing reactance is proven by
the fact that retuning the network to resonance was by adjusting it to obtain
the plate-current dip.



Step 10.
With the 17.98 + j8.77-ohm load still connected, the pi-network
loading and tuning are now re-adjusted to again deliver all available
power with drive level setting still left undisturbed. The
readjustment of the plate tuning capacitor has increased the
capacitive reactance in the pi-network by -8.77 ohms, canceling the
+8.77 ohms of inductive reactance in the load, returning the system to
resonance. The readjustment of the loading control capacitor has
decreased the output capacitive reactance, thus reducing the output
resistance from 50 to 17.98 ohms. Thus the network readjustments have
decreased the output impedance from 50 +j0 to 17.98 - j 8.77 ohms, the
conjugate of the load impedance, 17.98 + j8.77 ohms. The readjustments
have also returned the network input impedance ZL to 1400 + j0 ohms
(again equal to RLP), have returned the original area of the RF window
at the network input, and have returned the slope of the loadline to
its original value. For verification of the 1400-ohm network input
resistance after the readjustment, ZL was again measured using the
method described in Step 2, and found it to have returned to 1400 + j0
ohms.



Richard continues:
Points in response:
This step is fraught with leaps of faith substituting for sound,
practical evidence.
1.This step consists of several steps. Rhetorically, what is the
meaning of steps, to so much shift stylistically? This is not an
isolated instance, so writing structure needs to be re-examined.
2.All Available Power, (a rhetorical shift from maximum) has not been
established, much less shown. It is not denied that a greater power
can be applied to the new load; but the actual amount of power is not
reported (a reporting shift from earlier protocol).



Walt says: All the available power WAS ESTABLISHED AND SHOWN IN STEP 10,
quoting: "With the 17.98 + j8.77-ohm load still connected, the pi-network
loading and tuning are now re-adjusted to again deliver all available power with
drive level setting still left undisturbed." All available power was initially
set to be 100w determined by the drive level which was left undisturbed.



Richard continues:

3.The declaration of attaining a reactance of -j8.77 Ohms is
unsubstantiated in reported measurements. This gives rise to the
appearance of speculation serving the argument.



Walt says: No speculation, and the -j8.77 ohms is not unsubstantiated, because
that reactance introduced into the network resulted in the network becoming
resonant in that it canceled the +j8.77 ohms appearing in the load. No
additional measurement is required to determine the existence of the -j8.77
ohms.


Richard continues:
4.Likewise, the declaration of lowering the output (terminal) Z to
17.98 Ohms is a remarkably precise value without any measurement
evidenced.


Walt says: All available power is delivered when the load resistance is equal
to the source resistance. The load resistance was 17.98 ohms. Because all
available power was delivered into 17.98 ohms the output resistance is
inherently 17.98 ohms.


Richard continues:
5.The verification measurement, a step of considerable substance, is
rendered here as an footnote, clouding the earlier responses, 2 & 3
above, jarring against the lack of the actual measurements of -j8.77
Ohms and 17.98 Ohms. In a nutshell, the verification is shortchanged
against the completeness of earlier measurements.

Walt says: Richard is really clutching at straws here in his attempt to
discredit my measurements.



Richard continues:

6.The adjustment of the plate load does not reveal a conjugation.

Walt says: With the plate current again dipped at 206ma. now at resonance with
the initially mismatched load, the same plate current obtained at resonance with
the 50-ohm load, proves the match now existing at the network output is a
conjugate match.



Step. 11
Bird 43 power meter readings following the readjustment procedure now
indicate 130w forward and 29.5w reflected, indicating 100.5w
delivered to the mismatched load.


Richard continues:
Points in response:
1. The cost of the variation in usage of the term Step now comes home
to roost. This step is obviously simple reporting. However, it is
reporting out of sequence, which is the purpose of offering Steps so
that this can be avoided.
2. It also reveals the problems of precision offered where impedances
are reported to 2 decimal places (exceeding the accuracy of
equipment). Formerly, Maximum Available Power was explicitly defined
(to one decimal place) as 100W, and now we find 100.5W applied to the
newly matched load. The laws of precise reporting would suggest the
earlier Maximum Available Power should have been specified at 100.0W
(tenths of W precision); or consistent with its earlier 1% precision
that this new reading should be offered as 101W (with appropriate
promotion of the 0.5W).



Walt says: Picky picky picky.



Richard continues:

3. I would point out that the Bird 43 Power Meter's accuracy is 5% of
full scale and that to this point no specification has been offered as
to what actual equipment is being used as there are seven possible
plug-ins available (where only three would be sensibly chosen here).
This gives rise to the author conferring upon the reviewer the power
to choose for him. I will arbitrarily infer from the information
provided that two plug-ins are used: 100W and 250W. The 100W would be
selected for the first power reading offered in Step 1 as this would
give the greatest accuracy to that cardinal point. The 250W element
for the 130W reading in Step 11. I presume that the 100W element
would be used for the reverse power readings, as that would be the
greatest advantage; unless, of course, the 50W element was available
(this is the hazard of incomplete reporting).
4. A 29.5W reading is both an interpolation (there are no half Watt
gradations), and subject to error. The proper reporting would allow
for the interpolation but cite it as 29.5W ±5W (or nearly 17% of
reading).
5. A more substantial ±25W error inhabits the 130W reading due to the
use of the 250W element. The proper reporting would allow for the
interpolation but cite it as 130W ±25W (or nearly 19% of reading).
Given that these are two, separate measurements, we have to render the
delivered power as:
(155W .. 105W) + (-34.5W .. -24.5W)
where the optimistic combination of all inaccuracies offer a spread of
delivered power:
120.5W .. 80.5W
This is a huge variation of ±20W around what had been presumed to
represent the Maximum Available Power of 100W (which, in itself could
only have been reported as 95W .. 105W).
6. For the reader, there is a object lesson to be learned here in
regard to RF power measurement accuracy where none is required (as I
pointed out, the introduction of Maximum Available Power is an
unnecessary elaboration to the subordinate thesis). That is, the
greatest usage of the Bird (or any indicating instrument) would be
found in returning the system to a cardinal reading point on its
scale. This would collapse the nearly 20% error to less than one-tenth
that value.... If it mattered at all (it doesn't).

Walt says: In the above unnecessary discourse Richard is only showing off his
expertise as a metrologist.



Step 13.
It is thus evident that the amplifier has returned to delivering the
original power, 100 watts into the previously mismatched
complex-impedance load, now conjugately matched, the same as when it
was delivering 100 watts into the 50-ohm non-reactive load. But the
reflected power, 30.6 watts, remains in the coax, adding to the 100
watts delivered by the amplifier to establish the 130.6 watts of
forward power, proving that it does not enter the amplifier to
dissipate and heat the network or the tube.


Richard continues:
Points in response:
1. The power accounting is wholly lacking in accuracy implications as
previously noted.



Walt says: Totally false. The only inaccuracies are in the measurement errors
inherent in the measurement equipment that come with the territory. The large
deviations in the precisions Richard alludes to are unrealistic.


Richard continues:
2. That 30.6W remains in the coax has been through the intervention
of the amplifier operator's tuning.


Walt says: Totally false. The 30.6w remains in the coax because the reflected
power was totally re-reflected because the non-dissipative source resistance
reflected it. If the source resistance had been dissipative the reflected power
would have been only 25w, not 30.6 watts, and the 25w would have been absorbed
in the source, which it was not.



Richard continues:

The reflection of power from the
original mismatch clearly impacted the dissipation of the finals
without such intervention. Intervention was a necessity of preventing
the untoward, catastrophic failure of the amplifier (in a general
sense for all possible load reflection angles).
3. The 30.6W remaining in the coax is a function of tuning that cast
the issues of dissipation out of the tube, and moved the line of
dissipation towards the load (actually, into the tuning elements of
the plate and the line itself). This is the whole raison d'etre of
tuning the grid/plate or matching the load.



Walt says: Although the reflected power caused the mismatch appearing at the
input of the 13° line, the reflection of power itself did not affect the
dissipation of the amp, because the reflected power never entered the network.
It was simply the reactance in the load that detuned the network that increased
the dissipation, as would be expected when the network is detuned from
resonance.



I hope my responses have sufficiently explained why Richard's criticism is so
outrageously incorrect. I have no clue as to his motivation for discrediting my
writing to this extent, because it is totally unwarranted.



Walt, W2DU

Art Unwin June 22nd 08 06:10 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 22, 11:33 am, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
RICHARD:

I've known you for a long time to be tough but fair. I've envied your depth of
knowledge in many areas of expertise. Which is why I entrusted you and others on
this thread with my Chapter 19A for an honest peer review. I expected to receive
a fair review from you that would fare well in proving my paper correct for
those who don't yet understand, or don't believe the principles involved.

However, instead of receiving a fair critique of my paper you trashed it with an
axe. Every criticism you made was not only negative, but clearly false. If I
didn't know you better I would conclude from your comments that you don't have a
clue concerning the operation of RF amplifiers.

Since you chose to denigrate my writing instead of giving it a fair critique,
why did you broadcast it on the news group instead of discussing your position
with me privately? Since you have broadcast it I have no choice but to defend my
position by rebutting each and every one of your false statements on this thread
for all to see.

Thus I'm repeating your comments with my responses to them to set the record
straight.

Richard says:

Hi All,

This is simply a quick overview from the separate threads that will
follow, each thread devoted to only one Step in the progression of
measurements Steps offered by Walt Maxwell in his upcoming release of
"Reflections III," Chapter 19A in particular.

I have been working off of three revisions of this work, and some
quotes may not be accurate. I will leave reconciliation of those to
others as this has been a long and exhaustive examination, and I don't
perceive any substantive issues shifted along the way. Not all steps
will be critiqued as not all contain response beyond my noting they
contained simple reports of fact that did not merit challenging. A
full article length version containing all discussion of this will be
available.

The discussion threads follow immediately.

Walt says:

The numbered steps are quotes from Chapter 19A

Step 1.
Using a Kenwood TS-830S transceiver as the RF source, the tuning and
loading of the pi-network are adjusted to deliver all the available
power into a 50 + j0-ohm load with the grid drive adjusted to deliver
the maximum of 100 watts at 4 MHz, thus establishing the area of the
RF power window at the input of the pi-network, resistance RLP at the
plate, and the slope of the load line. The output source resistance of
the amplifier in this condition will later be shown to be 50 ohms. In
this condition the DC plate voltage is 800 v and plate current is 260
ma. DC input power is therefore 800 x 0.26 a = 208 w. Readings on
the Bird 43 wattmeter indicate 100 watts forward and zero watts
reflected. (100 watts is the maximum RF output power available at this
drive level.) From here on the grid drive is left undisturbed, and the
pi-network controls are left undisturbed until Step 10.

Richard says:
There are several points in response he
1.The load specification ( 50 + j0-ohm) is for full output power, not
some portion of it. This is a minor point.

Walt says: This is NOT a minor point. The output power at 100 watts was
specified as the reference power, not the full output power the xmtr could
produce.

2.Maximum power from a TS-830S can be as high as 120W, could be lower
depending on finals' service life. This is a minor point.

Walt says: This is also NOT a minor point. The TS-830S used for the measurements
is capable of producing more than 130 watts, but 100 watts was used to assure
stability that could be compromised if running the xmtr at its full output.

Harold E. Johnson June 22nd 08 07:03 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
Could all of you experts who can count the angels on the head of a pin but
obviously cannot read English, please take this to a relevant newsgroup?
This is not an antenna issue, and doesn't belong anywhere in the same zip
code with rec.radio.amateur. ANTENNA.

If your egos just absolutely demand publication, perhaps a new newsgroup
with the name "dummy load" would suffice. and any of you could start it.
Personally, I'll be very careful to avoid it.

W4ZCB

Walter Maxwell June 22nd 08 07:43 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that Richard had
the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the newsgroup. With common sense
he should have known to send his comments to me, not to broadcast them. I felt I
had no choice but to put my rebuttal in the same place to defend myself from
from his unwarrented comments.

Walt, W2DU

Lumpy June 22nd 08 08:05 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
1 - Who the **** are you?
2 - What the **** is chapter 19A?
3 - Why the **** have you wasted so much
space on this antenna newsgroup with your
post asking for reviews and then getting
your panties wadded when someone "denigrates"
your stupid ass paper?

**** you and your ****ing chapters.


Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

Richard Clark June 22nd 08 08:47 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:33:41 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

I've known you for a long time to be tough but fair. I've envied your depth of
knowledge in many areas of expertise. Which is why I entrusted you and others on
this thread with my Chapter 19A for an honest peer review. I expected to receive
a fair review from you that would fare well in proving my paper correct for
those who don't yet understand, or don't believe the principles involved.



However, instead of receiving a fair critique of my paper you trashed it with an
axe. Every criticism you made was not only negative, but clearly false. If I
didn't know you better I would conclude from your comments that you don't have a
clue concerning the operation of RF amplifiers.



Since you chose to denigrate my writing instead of giving it a fair critique,
why did you broadcast it on the news group instead of discussing your position
with me privately? Since you have broadcast it I have no choice but to defend my
position by rebutting each and every one of your false statements on this thread
for all to see.



Thus I'm repeating your comments with my responses to them to set the record
straight.

Hi Walt,

I posted the Steps, contrary to the typical slap-dash past, as then
they've been ignored, speculated, and "interpreted" without direct
quotation for 130 postings from many authors before mine. The
material of Chapter 19A was thus in the public debate by invitation
long before I dipped my bucket into this well.

I posted each step individually to create separate, one topic threads
and to reduce the reading load of one 600 line submission.

Any issue of my not having backfilled missing knowledge to the Steps
is a comment on the Steps' original style, not the chapter's original
content. I am responsible for neither and I am doing the job of
editor revealing faults of ordering, and wholes in continuity. If
this is perceived as a personal slight, I am sorry.

Comparing my 9 posts as poison to the 130 others' treacle informs
everyone that I have at least attended specific technical points that
can be identified and correlated. In other words, I purposely and at
some great effort and time have taken personal responsibility for
explicit statements.

In any future correspondence, I will only respond to technical issues
within those threads to maintain continuity of discussion.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Harold E. Johnson June 22nd 08 08:59 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 

"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
...
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had
the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the newsgroup. With common
sense
he should have known to send his comments to me, not to broadcast them. I
felt I
had no choice but to put my rebuttal in the same place to defend myself
from
from his unwarrented comments.

Walt, W2DU

Walter, I can delete posts as well as the next guy, the point is, I
shouldn't need to. You started the whole thing by giving Cecil the push.
You, he, and several other off topic posters have just close to ruined a
newsgroup that used to be a useful source of information concerning
antennas. Then there's always the rebuttal to the rebuttal ad nausium. I
know that you are as convinced as Bruene is of the sanctity of your
convictions, you should realize, that the vast majority of the rest of us
don't really care which of you are right. We've successfully managed to load
our rigs, work the world, and obtain some happiness without the knowledge
you insist on imparting to us. Please don't common sense Richard. With
common sense, you wouldn't have sent 19A to Cecil in the first place but
your ego got in the way.

I'll not entertain the group with any more of this, I would hope that you
take my earlier post to heart and get off the newsgroup unless you have
something to post that contributes to the antenna sciences.

W4ZCB



Art Unwin June 22nd 08 10:21 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 22, 1:43 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that Richard had
the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the newsgroup. With common sense
he should have known to send his comments to me, not to broadcast them. I felt I
had no choice but to put my rebuttal in the same place to defend myself from
from his unwarrented comments.

Walt, W2DU

Walter, when I placed my page unwinantennas.com/ on this antenna
discussion group
you and Richard had the gall to attack me and my work just for the fun
of destruction.
My page which is on antennas by the way shows the path why antennas
can be any
shape ,size or configuration including variable elevation as long as
it is in equilibrium.
You and Richard took on the quest to crush the idea before it was
discussed fully while Richard denied
that the Gaussin progression could not be equal to Maxwells law., A
position he reversed himself on
a few months later without apology after discussion was succesfully
dissed. You as a expert book author chose gthe path of insults without
one iota of professional comment.
Shame on both of you. This group is for the discussion of antennas and
when I brought forward the
equilibrium matter forward I beat you to the punch by providing the
mathematical aproach first.
Neither of you discussed seriously what I proferred so neither of you
could find fault with it and Richard was particarly vicious
with his attacks and not once finding an error. You both destroyed the
idea of antenna discussion and debate on this newsgroup
because you both over estimate your own abilities while taking the
pagth of destruction. I worked hard at what I did and then shared it
with my fellow amateurs so all could enjoy. You Walt and Richard
deserve each other, as they say,what you sow so may you reap!. Some
day hams will be allowed to discuss or debate antenna matters without
fear of attack from you and your followers who provide nothing of
technical content to the discussion searching only for a "me too"
aproach. Maybe now that both of you have shown your true colours or
GALL as you call it other true hams will come back and discuss
antennas without being pushed aside. Wiered how you both take offense
of a tactic that you have practiced for years upon others with some
relish and now complain of the tone of debate or critism that do not
match your own position of chief adjudicater on the subject of
radiation.
Art Unwin
Unwinantennas.com/

Wayne June 23rd 08 12:12 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 

"Lumpy" wrote in message
...
Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com


If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.

Art Unwin June 23rd 08 12:33 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 22, 6:12 pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Lumpy" wrote in message

... Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.
Yup. That is correct. this is the third time he has published this
book in the hope of finally getting it right
but apparently it is discredited before publishing by the antenna
group! expert

Walter Maxwell June 23rd 08 12:52 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 6:12 pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Lumpy" wrote in message

... Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.
Yup. That is correct. this is the third time he has published this
book in the hope of finally getting it right
but apparently it is discredited before publishing by the antenna
group! expert

Art, I wish you'd get your facts straight before you post. To set the record
straight the 1st edition of Reflections sold out at 10,000 copies, the 2nd
edition at 3,000 copies, while the 3rd edition hasn't been published yet.
Nothing about anything pertaining to Reflections has been discredited. Who told
you it has been? If you'd like to look at a few of the chapters go to my web
page at www.w2du.com.

Walt

Lumpy June 23rd 08 12:56 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
Wayne wrote:

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word
"reflections", you might get the answers to your questions. You
might also discover that it is related to antenna systems.

I don't care who the author thinks he is.

But if he posts to a public forum, asking for critique,
then getting ****ed because someone
"had the gall to post his denigration of my paper"
then I guess he's just not as important as he,
and you, think he is.


Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

Art Unwin June 23rd 08 02:26 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 22, 6:52 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jun 22, 6:12 pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Lumpy" wrote in message

... Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.
Yup. That is correct. this is the third time he has published this
book in the hope of finally getting it right
but apparently it is discredited before publishing by the antenna
group! expert

Art, I wish you'd get your facts straight before you post. To set the record
straight the 1st edition of Reflections sold out at 10,000 copies, the 2nd
edition at 3,000 copies, while the 3rd edition hasn't been published yet.
Nothing about anything pertaining to Reflections has been discredited. Who told
you it has been? If you'd like to look at a few of the chapters go to my web
page atwww.w2du.com.

Walt

I have your book and I don't think much of it. With respect to facts
Richard lied about the mathematical connection between Gauss and
Maxwell. Most of you believed him without checking the facts and I was
dissed. Then a doctor Davis came aboard and showed you where you were
wrong but now everybody was committed and dissed him also. Yes, I was
discredited on a lie , which he admitted to after I was victimised by
all. Now he has discredited your book and you on the basis of what you
call" lies". I got no apologies and neither did Dr Davis
and the lie you were part of goes on to this day. You ask for facts
you got them and they are still in the archives. You are calling the
kettle black. Get back to antennas and stop promoting yourself and
your third book which you claim is now right.You at least got some
reasons as to why your postings were dissed, for my troubles I got
nothing.It is evident that the majority of this newsgro0up do not like
the move under way to change the subject of antennas so why not try to
get along with your fellow posters
or move on?

Art Unwin June 23rd 08 02:48 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 22, 8:26 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 22, 6:52 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jun 22, 6:12 pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Lumpy" wrote in message

... Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.
Yup. That is correct. this is the third time he has published this
book in the hope of finally getting it right
but apparently it is discredited before publishing by the antenna
group! expert

Art, I wish you'd get your facts straight before you post. To set the record
straight the 1st edition of Reflections sold out at 10,000 copies, the 2nd
edition at 3,000 copies, while the 3rd edition hasn't been published yet.
Nothing about anything pertaining to Reflections has been discredited. Who told
you it has been? If you'd like to look at a few of the chapters go to my web
page atwww.w2du.com.

Walt

I have your book and I don't think much of it. With respect to facts
Richard lied about the mathematical connection between Gauss and
Maxwell. Most of you believed him without checking the facts and I was
dissed. Then a doctor Davis came aboard and showed you where you were
wrong but now everybody was committed and dissed him also. Yes, I was
discredited on a lie , which he admitted to after I was victimised by
all. Now he has discredited your book and you on the basis of what you
call" lies". I got no apologies and neither did Dr Davis
and the lie you were part of goes on to this day. You ask for facts
you got them and they are still in the archives. You are calling the
kettle black. Get back to antennas and stop promoting yourself and
your third book which you claim is now right.You at least got some
reasons as to why your postings were dissed, for my troubles I got
nothing.It is evident that the majority of this newsgro0up do not like
the move under way to change the subject of antennas so why not try to
get along with your fellow posters
or move on?

By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math. You never
apologised either
on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics. The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie. You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again
but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.
If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Walter Maxwell June 23rd 08 03:47 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 


By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math. You never
apologised either
on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics. The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie. You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again
but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.
If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Art, I'm not a constant participant on the newsgroup, I've missed it a lot of
the time. So I don't know a Dr. Davis, nor do I know anything about a lie. And
what position do you think I took that would make me an accessory to a lie that
I know nothing about? I read quite some time ago that there was a discussion
concerning Gauss and Maxwell, but I didn't get into it, so I don't even know
who were discussing them. So how could I be in a position to make a rebuttal on
the Gauss/Maxwell question? You say I disagreed in the face of Richard stating
that he lied? Sorry Art, you have me confused with someone else, because I know
nothing about what you're talking about.

Walt, W2DU

Art Unwin June 23rd 08 05:28 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 22, 9:47 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math. You never
apologised either
on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics. The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie. You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again
but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.
If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Art, I'm not a constant participant on the newsgroup, I've missed it a lot of
the time. So I don't know a Dr. Davis, nor do I know anything about a lie. And
what position do you think I took that would make me an accessory to a lie that
I know nothing about? I read quite some time ago that there was a discussion
concerning Gauss and Maxwell, but I didn't get into it, so I don't even know
who were discussing them. So how could I be in a position to make a rebuttal on
the Gauss/Maxwell question? You say I disagreed in the face of Richard stating
that he lied? Sorry Art, you have me confused with someone else, because I know
nothing about what you're talking about.

Walt, W2DU

Yet you joined in Walter in the party and the destruction of the
theme of what I was offering!
You are now saying you joined in without being aware of what was
happening? You knew then that Richard was a lier but it wasn't you
that was being harmed so it was o.k. Now it is you that is in the pot
and you are indignant because of his !supposed lies as well as being
surprised.
I don't accept your excuses of not being aware of what was going on
when you mimiced an englishmans banter when you rediculed what I was
offering regarding Gauss's law of statics choosing now to saying you
were unaware. Richard has ridiculed your position and your book now
but you are fortunate, he gave the reasons why and you have yet to
defend your positions with conviction even tho you are convinced he is
lier. Now you realise how I felt where no reasoning was offerred for
rebuttal only thrown missiles.You were aware of the lie and did
nothing to correct it. I suggest you review all the postings that you
made because they are still there.You can't run and you can';t hide as
the truth is still there
prefering to jab at the heart. You know who you are and I know what
you are

[email protected] June 23rd 08 06:05 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
Walter Maxwell wrote:


By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math. You never
apologised either
on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics. The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie. You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again
but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.
If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Art, I'm not a constant participant on the newsgroup, I've missed it a lot of
the time. So I don't know a Dr. Davis, nor do I know anything about a lie. And
what position do you think I took that would make me an accessory to a lie that
I know nothing about? I read quite some time ago that there was a discussion
concerning Gauss and Maxwell, but I didn't get into it, so I don't even know
who were discussing them. So how could I be in a position to make a rebuttal on
the Gauss/Maxwell question? You say I disagreed in the face of Richard stating
that he lied? Sorry Art, you have me confused with someone else, because I know
nothing about what you're talking about.

That's OK, neither does Art.

Expect a bunch of babbling, incoherent nonsense in reply from him.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected] June 23rd 08 11:26 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 22, 8:48 pm, Art Unwin wrote:


I have your book and I don't think much of it. With respect to facts
Richard lied about the mathematical connection between Gauss and
Maxwell. Most of you believed him without checking the facts and I was
dissed. Then a doctor Davis came aboard and showed you where you were
wrong but now everybody was committed and dissed him also. Yes, I was
discredited on a lie , which he admitted to after I was victimised by
all. Now he has discredited your book and you on the basis of what you
call" lies". I got no apologies and neither did Dr Davis
and the lie you were part of goes on to this day. You ask for facts
you got them and they are still in the archives. You are calling the
kettle black. Get back to antennas and stop promoting yourself and
your third book which you claim is now right.You at least got some
reasons as to why your postings were dissed, for my troubles I got
nothing.It is evident that the majority of this newsgro0up do not like
the move under way to change the subject of antennas so why not try to
get along with your fellow posters
or move on?

By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math.

Who cares.. You never gave any math to prove you are right.


You never
apologised either

Who cares... It's not his job to suck up to whiny little twits..

on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics.

I take this as an admission that your math may even be worse
than mine is? :/

The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie.

But does he really care if it was or not?
I suspect he had better things to worry about.


You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again

This statement makes a lot of sense.. Almost
as much as a page full of your blabber about
equilibrium...

but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.

I suspect he has little time to waste on sub par physics, and
thus sub par antennas..

If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Hey whiny one. I'm your huckleberry!!! I'm fairly bored at times.
I can keep you busy until next Christmas if you really feel the
need for discussion. I don't need any help from the others.
I'll brown your food just from shear logic, and I won't even need
no stinking math to do it.
IE: I'd still like to hear about how a "static" particle can move,
twist, and do the universal tango. And don't tell me that Gauss
or equilibrium had anything to do with it.
Doktor Davis.. Thats a laugh.. I remember everything about
that adventure, and Art, *you* are the liar about that case.
I've seen bumps on a persons ass that were more useful
than Doktor Davis was to your case.
Rather than answer a few pertinent questions posed to him,
he did the duck and run, and has never been heard from since.

Frankly, I kind of surprised at all the whining here.
I don't think Walters post, or articles, or even books are
out of the topic range of this group.
And neither do I consider Richard Clarks posts either.
For some reason they have a difference of opinion,
and I think they should work it out to hopefully come
to a conclusion.
They can do it in private, or right here. I could care less.
I haven't kept up with whatever led up to all this, so
I'm not taking sides at all. Both may have valid points.

Some of the comments seem a bit strong to me..
I find some of the comments to Walter as pretty tacky.
To me, the posts *are* on topic. A heck of a lot
closer than worries about the demise of Usenet,
perpetual motion theories, tennis shoes, touchtone
mikes, BIG BROTHER, etc, ad nausium..
Some of you all need to chill down and relax..
Go drink some vodka. That will help calm the nerves.
Works for me.. I like it with grapefruit juice...
But thats just my 29 cents worth.

Art Unwin June 23rd 08 04:07 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 23, 5:26 am, wrote:
On Jun 22, 8:48 pm, Art Unwin wrote:





I have your book and I don't think much of it. With respect to facts
Richard lied about the mathematical connection between Gauss and
Maxwell. Most of you believed him without checking the facts and I was
dissed. Then a doctor Davis came aboard and showed you where you were
wrong but now everybody was committed and dissed him also. Yes, I was
discredited on a lie , which he admitted to after I was victimised by
all. Now he has discredited your book and you on the basis of what you
call" lies". I got no apologies and neither did Dr Davis
and the lie you were part of goes on to this day. You ask for facts
you got them and they are still in the archives. You are calling the
kettle black. Get back to antennas and stop promoting yourself and
your third book which you claim is now right.You at least got some
reasons as to why your postings were dissed, for my troubles I got
nothing.It is evident that the majority of this newsgro0up do not like
the move under way to change the subject of antennas so why not try to
get along with your fellow posters
or move on?

By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math.

Who cares.. You never gave any math to prove you are right.

You never
apologised either

Who cares... It's not his job to suck up to whiny little twits..

on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics.

I take this as an admission that your math may even be worse
than mine is? :/

The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie.

But does he really care if it was or not?
I suspect he had better things to worry about.

You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again

This statement makes a lot of sense.. Almost
as much as a page full of your blabber about
equilibrium...

but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.

I suspect he has little time to waste on sub par physics, and
thus sub par antennas..

If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Hey whiny one. I'm your huckleberry!!! I'm fairly bored at times.
I can keep you busy until next Christmas if you really feel the
need for discussion. I don't need any help from the others.
I'll brown your food just from shear logic, and I won't even need
no stinking math to do it.
IE: I'd still like to hear about how a "static" particle can move,
twist, and do the universal tango. And don't tell me that Gauss
or equilibrium had anything to do with it.
Doktor Davis.. Thats a laugh.. I remember everything about
that adventure, and Art, *you* are the liar about that case.
I've seen bumps on a persons ass that were more useful
than Doktor Davis was to your case.
Rather than answer a few pertinent questions posed to him,
he did the duck and run, and has never been heard from since.

Frankly, I kind of surprised at all the whining here.
I don't think Walters post, or articles, or even books are
out of the topic range of this group.
And neither do I consider Richard Clarks posts either.
For some reason they have a difference of opinion,
and I think they should work it out to hopefully come
to a conclusion.
They can do it in private, or right here. I could care less.
I haven't kept up with whatever led up to all this, so
I'm not taking sides at all. Both may have valid points.

Some of the comments seem a bit strong to me..
I find some of the comments to Walter as pretty tacky.
To me, the posts *are* on topic. A heck of a lot
closer than worries about the demise of Usenet,
perpetual motion theories, tennis shoes, touchtone
mikes, BIG BROTHER, etc, ad nausium..
Some of you all need to chill down and relax..
Go drink some vodka. That will help calm the nerves.
Works for me.. I like it with grapefruit juice...
But thats just my 29 cents worth.

I understand your frausteration with antenna discussions but it is
extremely hard to communicate the mathematical side of antennas for
anybody who did not reach the high school graduation point, especially
when you refuse to try to find out the meaning of equilibrium.
I just finished a explanation of my antenna work on Eham so you have a
chance to get up to speed on the subject rather than the spewing
remarks that reflect your fraustration especially when other more
experienced people are doing the same.
Regards
Art
unwinantennas.com/

[email protected] June 23rd 08 07:00 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 23, 10:07 am, Art Unwin wrote:


I understand your frausteration with antenna discussions but it is
extremely hard to communicate the mathematical side of antennas for
anybody who did not reach the high school graduation point, especially
when you refuse to try to find out the meaning of equilibrium.

Why would I need to know any math? You don't use or provide any
to inspect.
I know what equilibrium means to normal people. But you won't
provide any explanation for how you apply the term to antennas.

I just finished a explanation of my antenna work on Eham so you have a
chance to get up to speed on the subject rather than the spewing
remarks that reflect your fraustration especially when other more
experienced people are doing the same.

Yea, I checked it out.. What a hoot.. One ham invites you to provide
an on air test to check the performance of your antenna, but as
usual you ducked out with:
"I have no wish to get on the air to have a qso with you.
I have made antennas of all types using this aproach over the years
and presently have a 160 antenna made from multi interlaced wires to
make the antenna short physically."

You forgot to mention that you are either too lazy, or
basically too chicken @#$% to fire up the old rig and try it.
Pathetic...

Another requested plans so he could make one for himself.
You replied with:
"I will be happy to do so. But first the background.Antennas are
based
on Maxwells laws and the equations use the term root L.C."
But then had no further mention of providing any plans.

I also saw one thread where you were corrupting the mind of
some newby ham with your irrational drivel..
Shame on the mess...

Show me one place where you use math to explain your design.
You can't because you don't use any.
So explain to me how this would fraustrate me, whatever that
means. If anyone around here is fraustrated, it would be you.

Art Unwin June 23rd 08 07:10 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 23, 10:07 am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 23, 5:26 am, wrote:



On Jun 22, 8:48 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I have your book and I don't think much of it. With respect to facts
Richard lied about the mathematical connection between Gauss and
Maxwell. Most of you believed him without checking the facts and I was
dissed. Then a doctor Davis came aboard and showed you where you were
wrong but now everybody was committed and dissed him also. Yes, I was
discredited on a lie , which he admitted to after I was victimised by
all. Now he has discredited your book and you on the basis of what you
call" lies". I got no apologies and neither did Dr Davis
and the lie you were part of goes on to this day. You ask for facts
you got them and they are still in the archives. You are calling the
kettle black. Get back to antennas and stop promoting yourself and
your third book which you claim is now right.You at least got some
reasons as to why your postings were dissed, for my troubles I got
nothing.It is evident that the majority of this newsgro0up do not like
the move under way to change the subject of antennas so why not try to
get along with your fellow posters
or move on?

By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math.

Who cares.. You never gave any math to prove you are right.

You never
apologised either

Who cares... It's not his job to suck up to whiny little twits..

on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics.

I take this as an admission that your math may even be worse
than mine is? :/

The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie.

But does he really care if it was or not?
I suspect he had better things to worry about.

You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again

This statement makes a lot of sense.. Almost
as much as a page full of your blabber about
equilibrium...

but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.

I suspect he has little time to waste on sub par physics, and
thus sub par antennas..

If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Hey whiny one. I'm your huckleberry!!! I'm fairly bored at times.
I can keep you busy until next Christmas if you really feel the
need for discussion. I don't need any help from the others.
I'll brown your food just from shear logic, and I won't even need
no stinking math to do it.
IE: I'd still like to hear about how a "static" particle can move,
twist, and do the universal tango. And don't tell me that Gauss
or equilibrium had anything to do with it.
Doktor Davis.. Thats a laugh.. I remember everything about
that adventure, and Art, *you* are the liar about that case.
I've seen bumps on a persons ass that were more useful
than Doktor Davis was to your case.
Rather than answer a few pertinent questions posed to him,
he did the duck and run, and has never been heard from since.

Frankly, I kind of surprised at all the whining here.
I don't think Walters post, or articles, or even books are
out of the topic range of this group.
And neither do I consider Richard Clarks posts either.
For some reason they have a difference of opinion,
and I think they should work it out to hopefully come
to a conclusion.
They can do it in private, or right here. I could care less.
I haven't kept up with whatever led up to all this, so
I'm not taking sides at all. Both may have valid points.

Some of the comments seem a bit strong to me..
I find some of the comments to Walter as pretty tacky.
To me, the posts *are* on topic. A heck of a lot
closer than worries about the demise of Usenet,
perpetual motion theories, tennis shoes, touchtone
mikes, BIG BROTHER, etc, ad nausium..
Some of you all need to chill down and relax..
Go drink some vodka. That will help calm the nerves.
Works for me.. I like it with grapefruit juice...
But thats just my 29 cents worth.

I understand your frausteration with antenna discussions but it is
extremely hard to communicate the mathematical side of antennas for
anybody who did not reach the high school graduation point, especially
when you refuse to try to find out the meaning of equilibrium.
I just finished a explanation of my antenna work on Eham so you have a
chance to get up to speed on the subject rather than the spewing
remarks that reflect your fraustration especially when other more
experienced people are doing the same.
Regards
Art
unwinantennas.com/

I dislike the way you slandered John E Davis ! He has only made a few
posts on this newsgroup which are readily obtainable.
He posted on this newsgroup purely to provide the equality of
mathematics of Maxwell and Gauss for which he is qaulified with a
doctrate from MIT working on astral matters for NASA. He made several
attempts to explain the math even in the face of caustic comments from
this group. After he had supplied the mathematics he then left the
newsgroup. He did not cut and run. He did what he set out to do and he
did it extremely well.
Since that time, months,Richard admitted that what Davis said was
true. No. He said of course it was true. Others that followed Richard
in that lie have never recanted preffering to continually to pljunge
the knife. I suggest you recover John's posts on the mathematics and
apologize

[email protected] June 23rd 08 09:40 PM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 23, 1:10 pm, Art Unwin wrote:


I dislike the way you slandered John E Davis !
I'll send you a quarter and you can call someone
who gives a @#$%..

He has only made a few
posts on this newsgroup which are readily obtainable.

I'm well aware of his posts. I've retrieved them for others
at least once or twice.

He posted on this newsgroup purely to provide the equality of
mathematics of Maxwell and Gauss for which he is qaulified with a
doctrate from MIT working on astral matters for NASA.

I don't care if he's Navin R. Johnson, he was still useless to
your cause.

He made several
attempts to explain the math even in the face of caustic comments from
this group. After he had supplied the mathematics he then left the
newsgroup.

I don't recall him giving out any math at all.

He did not cut and run. He did what he set out to do and he
did it extremely well.

Then why couldn't he answer the simple questions posed to him?
He did what he set out to do, which was to cover his ass, and
he did it extremely well.

Since that time, months,Richard admitted that what Davis said was
true. No. He said of course it was true.

I'd have to let Richard speak for himself. I recall no such thing.

Others that followed Richard
in that lie have never recanted preffering to continually to pljunge
the knife. I suggest you recover John's posts on the mathematics and
apologize

You are not in a position to suggest anything. You can't even get
off your rear to fire up a rig and test an antenna when requested
to do so. If this were not the case, you would know your antenna is a
pseudo dummy load from prior experience, and we wouldn't be having
this usenet QSO.

Mike Kaliski June 24th 08 12:03 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 

wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 1:10 pm, Art Unwin wrote:


I dislike the way you slandered John E Davis !
I'll send you a quarter and you can call someone
who gives a @#$%..

He has only made a few
posts on this newsgroup which are readily obtainable.

I'm well aware of his posts. I've retrieved them for others
at least once or twice.

He posted on this newsgroup purely to provide the equality of
mathematics of Maxwell and Gauss for which he is qaulified with a
doctrate from MIT working on astral matters for NASA.

I don't care if he's Navin R. Johnson, he was still useless to
your cause.

He made several
attempts to explain the math even in the face of caustic comments from
this group. After he had supplied the mathematics he then left the
newsgroup.

I don't recall him giving out any math at all.

He did not cut and run. He did what he set out to do and he
did it extremely well.

Then why couldn't he answer the simple questions posed to him?
He did what he set out to do, which was to cover his ass, and
he did it extremely well.

Since that time, months,Richard admitted that what Davis said was
true. No. He said of course it was true.

I'd have to let Richard speak for himself. I recall no such thing.

Others that followed Richard
in that lie have never recanted preffering to continually to pljunge
the knife. I suggest you recover John's posts on the mathematics and
apologize

You are not in a position to suggest anything. You can't even get
off your rear to fire up a rig and test an antenna when requested
to do so. If this were not the case, you would know your antenna is a
pseudo dummy load from prior experience, and we wouldn't be having
this usenet QSO.


Not that this is particularly relevant, but while training to be a Marine
Radio Officer many years ago in central London, a message was received from
the coast station at Dover requesting that we cease test transmissions on
480 kHz as we were causing interference to maritime coast station
operations. The transmitter was running less than 80 watts CW into a fully
screened dummy load at the time! This is a distance of around 70 miles as
the crow flies.

Art's antenna apparently contains what would be several wavelengths of
helically wound conductor at any HF amateur frequency (I recall seeing a
figure of 2000 feet mentioned). I see no reason why it wouldn't radiate
considerably better than a dummy load in an earthed screened box. If lack of
real estate means you have to use miniature antennas, it doesn't matter what
you use if it gets a signal out.

As I see it, Art is claiming that his antenna is a no tune, all band antenna
which is very compact and efficient for it's size. Experience suggests to m
that the radiation efficiency is nowhere near as good as a full sized
resonant or beam antenna and I doubt that new physical principles are
involved. Experience also suggests that the sheer amount of wire in the
antenna will present an acceptable match to most transmitters at HF
frequencies and above. Dummy load or not, if it is radiating even a quite
modest signal at low horizontal angles, it will suit many urban dwellers and
give relatively good DX performance for its size.

It really doesn't matter what the maths are or whether exotic new physics is
involved. If you stick a couple of thousand feet of wire up in the air (even
wound in a coil) the system is going to put out a signal.

This forum often degenerates into meaningless discussions as to the exact
meaning of a word, phrase, or measurement and specifications used. While
this might be necessary for a rigorous scientific analysis, the clue is in
the name rec.radio.amateur.antenna.

Don't get bogged down in meaningless minor theoretical details. Does it do
what is claimed? Yes or no. Job done.

Regards

Mike G0ULI


Art Unwin June 24th 08 12:34 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 23, 6:03 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Jun 23, 1:10 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I dislike the way you slandered John E Davis !
I'll send you a quarter and you can call someone
who gives a @#$%..

He has only made a few
posts on this newsgroup which are readily obtainable.

I'm well aware of his posts. I've retrieved them for others
at least once or twice.

He posted on this newsgroup purely to provide the equality of
mathematics of Maxwell and Gauss for which he is qaulified with a
doctrate from MIT working on astral matters for NASA.

I don't care if he's Navin R. Johnson, he was still useless to
your cause.

He made several
attempts to explain the math even in the face of caustic comments from
this group. After he had supplied the mathematics he then left the
newsgroup.

I don't recall him giving out any math at all.

He did not cut and run. He did what he set out to do and he
did it extremely well.

Then why couldn't he answer the simple questions posed to him?
He did what he set out to do, which was to cover his ass, and
he did it extremely well.

Since that time, months,Richard admitted that what Davis said was
true. No. He said of course it was true.

I'd have to let Richard speak for himself. I recall no such thing.

Others that followed Richard
in that lie have never recanted preffering to continually to pljunge
the knife. I suggest you recover John's posts on the mathematics and
apologize

You are not in a position to suggest anything. You can't even get
off your rear to fire up a rig and test an antenna when requested
to do so. If this were not the case, you would know your antenna is a
pseudo dummy load from prior experience, and we wouldn't be having
this usenet QSO.

Not that this is particularly relevant, but while training to be a Marine
Radio Officer many years ago in central London, a message was received from
the coast station at Dover requesting that we cease test transmissions on
480 kHz as we were causing interference to maritime coast station
operations. The transmitter was running less than 80 watts CW into a fully
screened dummy load at the time! This is a distance of around 70 miles as
the crow flies.

Art's antenna apparently contains what would be several wavelengths of
helically wound conductor at any HF amateur frequency (I recall seeing a
figure of 2000 feet mentioned). I see no reason why it wouldn't radiate
considerably better than a dummy load in an earthed screened box. If lack of
real estate means you have to use miniature antennas, it doesn't matter what
you use if it gets a signal out.

As I see it, Art is claiming that his antenna is a no tune, all band antenna
which is very compact and efficient for it's size. Experience suggests to m
that the radiation efficiency is nowhere near as good as a full sized
resonant or beam antenna and I doubt that new physical principles are
involved. Experience also suggests that the sheer amount of wire in the
antenna will present an acceptable match to most transmitters at HF
frequencies and above. Dummy load or not, if it is radiating even a quite
modest signal at low horizontal angles, it will suit many urban dwellers and
give relatively good DX performance for its size.

It really doesn't matter what the maths are or whether exotic new physics is
involved. If you stick a couple of thousand feet of wire up in the air (even
wound in a coil) the system is going to put out a signal.

This forum often degenerates into meaningless discussions as to the exact
meaning of a word, phrase, or measurement and specifications used. While
this might be necessary for a rigorous scientific analysis, the clue is in
the name rec.radio.amateur.antenna.

Don't get bogged down in meaningless minor theoretical details. Does it do
what is claimed? Yes or no. Job done.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

I am in full agreement except it needs clarification regards the
tuning portion. Yes it has a reasonable impedance at scource for all
frequencies and thus will radiate on all frequencies. For amateur use
they would want to choose a wavelength as the basis for equilibrium
because of gain and bandwidth effects. So for a spot frequency it is
better to jumper to the wavelength of the frequency of choice. I by
choice have several jumpers while at the same time using a variometer
to accommodate frequencies that do not exactly match the jumper
positions.Computer programs show that you can obtain gains with
multiples of wave length similar to a helix where the windings must
continue back to the feed point so that external lumped loads are
cancelled to bring the array into equilibrium, which means that
multiple wavelength unit can be used to advantage., I still haven't
found out why Maxwell did not emphasize the equilibrium status when
all that provided formulas for his work all emphasised Newtons laws. I
do know that he wrote a paper on equilibrium in his later years but I
have found no evidence he went back to add it to his prior
law( possibly he wanted to place his own mark on the formulae that he
garnished from others) One last thing I want to emphasise.
For TOTAL gain it matters little if you use a yagi or a non planar
arrangement the difference comes into play where the need is for a
maximum gain of a particular polarity where equilibrium comes to the
fore.
Regards
Art
Unwinantennas.com/

Lumpy June 24th 08 02:43 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
Mike Kaliski wrote:
...it doesn't matter what you use if it gets a signal out.

That's been my theory since my earliest
experiments with transmitting.

But that theory seem to get lost on the
pseudo-intellectuals who claim "Oh you
can't do that, it doesn't fit my
understanding of how it should work".

I work QRP SSB into a random wire or a
horribly mismatched non-symmetrical dipole,
almost exclusively. I have hams on some lists
tell me they think I'm lying when I claim to
make contacts because I "broke the laws of physics".

Ham radio! Talk to the world!
Or skip the talk part and just go
tell other hams how much you "know".


Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

Art Unwin June 24th 08 03:42 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 23, 8:43 pm, "Lumpy" wrote:
Mike Kaliski wrote:
...it doesn't matter what you use if it gets a signal out.

That's been my theory since my earliest
experiments with transmitting.

But that theory seem to get lost on the
pseudo-intellectuals who claim "Oh you
can't do that, it doesn't fit my
understanding of how it should work".

I work QRP SSB into a random wire or a
horribly mismatched non-symmetrical dipole,
almost exclusively. I have hams on some lists
tell me they think I'm lying when I claim to
make contacts because I "broke the laws of physics".

Ham radio! Talk to the world!
Or skip the talk part and just go
tell other hams how much you "know".

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

Hi Lumpy you are a blast of fresh air!
On this group a common remark is
"I wish you would check out the facts first"
This is in other words is the expert telling you that you must agree
with him.
This is really the basis of this actual thread where a book writer is
angry
because people publicly disagree with him and his writings. Read my
book it is authoritative,
no I don't need to read other peoples pages or work! or "I don't
recall that"
which parallels cover for lies in Congress and in talk groups.
I have been a big gun with a 80 foot long multi element yagi but now
the talking side lags
behind the design of small antennas so all can enjoy"I was always told
that you must supply the math first
before you make a claim. Now I find that when the math is supplied
they state they don';t understand
or are convinced that one plus one is three! There is no way a ham
(self perceived expert) on this group
will accept that all is not known and I am the one who knows it all.
Which is why they dissed that Doctor from MIT and NASA
who provided some mathematical data that they disagreed with. Ofcourse
one and one equals three, the majority on this newsgroup agrees on
that so you MUST be wrong. On top of that we are the experts no less!

[email protected] June 24th 08 11:15 AM
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
 
On Jun 23, 6:03 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:


Don't get bogged down in meaningless minor theoretical details. Does it do
what is claimed? Yes or no. Job done.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

Thats the whole problem. If he just offered the design as what it is,
instead of what he fantasies it to be, I would have no problem.
It's no secret that almost anything will radiate to some degree.
Many people have made QSO's using nothing but dummy loads.
I have no problem with this.
Why? Because they didn't build a dummy load, and then proclaim
it as some new breakthrough in science.
It Art designed and built this antenna, and offered it to the public
as is, without all the pseudo science bafflegab, he would never
hear from me.
I wouldn't even care that he never actually tests the antenna.
But nope.. Art doesn't play the game that way.
He uses a modeling program to conjer up all kinds of weird
designs, and then uses the optimizer programs to try to get
maximum gain, or whatever he is trying to find.
He cooks up a particular design, decides he likes it, and
then reveals it to the world as some exotic new design,
which uses exotic theory, which only Art and some obscure
doktor from MIT can understand.
He can not explain these designs using known theory, so
he cooks up page after page after page of nothing but
pure unadulterated bafflegab to try to explain how they
might work.
*This* is the problem as I see it.
Heck, I might not even have a problem with that alone, he
wasn't so insistent that his "theory" is indeed fact.
I check all his pages and he provides NO math at all.
But he continues to whine about math.
I have read the Doktor Davis thread several times since
it was posted, and he provides NO math to explain Arts
design. And he did duck and run when it was suggested
that he was misreading the data. Instead of giving an answer
one way or the other, he vanished, never to be heard from
again.
Art refuses to do real world tests. He refuses to actually
try the antenna on the air to do comparisons with a
known antenna such as a dipole even when invited to
do so by other hams.
He'll always offer some lame excuse as to why he refuses
to do so. Either that, or he reverses the invitation to make
it appear as an attack on poor old Art, the man who
the phrase "woe is me" was apparently written for.
..
I've told him several times to just build the thing and let
the chips fall where they may.
He seems to build a few, but he never gets to testing
how the chips may fall.
He sent one to a ham on this group, and we never heard
a peep since. If it was the "miracle whip" it was made out
to be, seems to me the word would be out by now.

Well, excuse the @#$% out of me if I don't fall in line
and do the goose step along side of him in an orderly
military manner. :/


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com