On Oct 6, 8:16*am, John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On second thought, your post reminds me, more, of a womans' slip showing
... I mean, taking for granted, one did not wish to expose what has been
exposed in the event.

Regards,
JS

John, do me a favour and re read Richards last 5 or 10 posts and then
ask yourself
Did Richard provide any thing to you that was usefull? He will only
supply querstions
so that he can belittle those that try to answer. He himself will
never supply anything
that is seen as profitablke to this group at large. If the last 12
postings doesn't satisfy
you then look at the last 25, or 50 postings. There is no likely
hood that he is going to change
after spending several years taking this tack to annoy people on this
group. So why respond to him
which only satisfies his quest of being belonged as a person some
where in this World.
He is lonely, he is without friends and just an obnoxious person
seeking a conversation with anybody
and I mean anybody that he can rope in and annoy just to extend the
length of the conversation so he has a sense of belonging.
So John look at his past postings and ask yourself is any conversation
with Richard worth while and then take the appropiate action.
He can then turn to KB9RQZ to satisfy his needs without disruption to
the rest of us and where he will find a true friend with similar
tastes.
Best regard
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On Oct 6, 8:16 am, John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
On second thought, your post reminds me, more, of a womans' slip showing
... I mean, taking for granted, one did not wish to expose what has been
exposed in the event.

Regards,
JS

John, do me a favour and re read Richards last 5 or 10 posts and then
ask yourself Did Richard provide any thing to you that was usefull? He will only
supply querstions so that he can belittle those that try to answer.


So much fun to read though. I never miss a post.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Best regard
Art

You mean, AND THEN, notice the poor *(%^&$(*^*()& b*st*rd pokes fun at you?

Art, don't doubt me buddy, I have noticed!

However, Art, "You are a bit 'out there' even for me ... " wink

But, as always, the shade which could be pulled--remains open ...

Regards,
JS

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Best regard
Art

Art:

I have a weird sense of humor ...

But, "Poor Richard" (and NOT the invention of Franklin) has found the
end of that ... please forgive my bad behavior, my mother would scold
me, if she seen my past posts ... but then, she never enjoyed my
enjoyment of a good drink either (she is a total tea totaler) GRIN

Regards,
JS

On Oct 6, 9:24*pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

* ...

Best regard
Art

Art:

I have a weird sense of humor ...

But, "Poor Richard" (and NOT the invention of Franklin) has found the
end of that ... please forgive my bad behavior, my mother would scold
me, if she seen my past posts ... but then, she never enjoyed my
enjoyment of a good drink either (she is a total tea totaler) GRIN

Regards,
JS

John,
I have not read anything over the last two years regarding the M.O.M /
NEC
Can you give me a smigeon of information of what is being said of such
programs?
There was mention of such in a ARRL compendium a few years back that
made mention of the assumption made
on the continuity of an applied sine wave which conflicts I believe
with the Tank Circuit equivalent.
And ofcourse some programs do better with respect to proximity effect
better than others, but I have never seen anything of major content.
I do know that all four forces of the standard model are included in
such programs however they are rarely utelised since they are not
really understood
in the present state of the art.
Regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

...
John,
I have not read anything over the last two years regarding the M.O.M /
NEC
Can you give me a smigeon of information of what is being said of such
programs?
There was mention of such in a ARRL compendium a few years back that
made mention of the assumption made
on the continuity of an applied sine wave which conflicts I believe
with the Tank Circuit equivalent.
And ofcourse some programs do better with respect to proximity effect
better than others, but I have never seen anything of major content.
I do know that all four forces of the standard model are included in
such programs however they are rarely utelised since they are not
really understood
in the present state of the art.
Regards
Art

Art:

Actually, Roy, or one (or all the hams) engaged in writing an interface
to the NEC engine (MMANA-GAL and 'those guys' -- do an internet search,
their emails are readily available), which frees us from having to enter
the actual numerical data into a text file, would be much better gurus ...

As you know, I am much more interested it what we can't see, at the
moment -- the either ... Art, I have as many questions as you ...

Regards,
JS