On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:33:04 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas

A very simple observation:

Give us one question you would expect to see.

Give us the answer that would be marked as passing.

Without both, this sappy sentiment of yours is nothing more than a
late night exercise of crying bitter tears into the pillow - and
leaving the window open so the neighbors can hear the sobs of regret.

It appears that sentimentality rules the thread. Lacking any steps
taken by Art towards providing a question with its corresponding
answer must mean he couldn't pass the same test it might be placed in.

Barring Art's hesitancy to supply his own solution, I can only rummage
up a similar instance from him where we might make this a quality of
test a CBer might tackle that is drawn from patented (5,625,367)
technology:

Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly
higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly
lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Thankfully, the PTO does not test nor issue licenses based upon this
technology source used as reference material.

I can well imagine how "equilibrium" would similarly pollute the
question pool and the lack of follow-up leaves us with the soap opera
it was always meant to be.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC