| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Jan 10, 6:59*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be accepted. Not so, Art. The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to twice, now. RF |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Richard Fry" wrote in message ... On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be accepted. Not so, Art. The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to twice, now. RF the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go around in circles. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Jan 11, 8:40*am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Richard Fry" wrote in ... * On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: * I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the * routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You * spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be * accepted. * Not so, Art. * The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking * about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end * along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven * invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago * -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to * twice, now. * RF the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject it. *art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go around in circles. Pull your dress down your slip is showing |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jan 11, 8:40 am, "Dave" wrote: "Richard Fry" wrote in ... On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be accepted. Not so, Art. The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to twice, now. RF the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go around in circles. Pull your dress down your slip is showing so you can't even come up with another technical comeback? just got to stoop all the way down to a cheap personal attack. I guess this thread is over then since you have run out of fun things to say. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Jan 11, 11:28*am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Art Unwin" wrote in ... * On Jan 11, 8:40 am, "Dave" wrote: * "Richard Fry" wrote in ... * On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: * * I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the * routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You * spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be * accepted. * * Not so, Art. * * The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking * about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end * along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven * invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago * -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to * twice, now. * * RF * * the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject * it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating * diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of * conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the * feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on * that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go * around in circles. * Pull your dress down your slip is showing so you can't even come up with another technical comeback? *just got to stoop all the way down to a cheap personal attack. *I guess this thread is over then since you have run out of fun things to say. Nope You have the solution in your own hands where you have total control if you are able to use a antenna computer program.Many on this group have an aversion to computers and thus rely on other means which puts control in book authors. If you have a similar aversion thats O.K. For those who can use a computer they can determine for themselves if antenna programs can be trusted or not. The exercise is totally in their hands where they can manipulate the rules in any way when using these programs. If it works out that this group cannot cope with computers then the solution will not surface and thus reliance of the truth resides some where else and not in their hands. Simple, simple simple Art |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Nope You have the solution in your own hands where you have total control if you are able to use a antenna computer program.Many on this group have an aversion to computers and thus rely on other means which puts control in book authors. If you have a similar aversion thats O.K. yeah, right... i am an author, and i also use computers, where does that put me? EVERYONE on this group must use a computer... kind of hard to use newsgroups like this without a computer. For those who can use a computer they can determine for themselves if antenna programs can be trusted or not. no they can't... not unless they have a sophisticated test setup to do fill size models and measurements to compare predicted with actual results. YOU don't even have that art, so how can you be so sure that the programs are doing what you think they are doing? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Jan 11, 12:22*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Nope You have the solution in your own hands where you have total control if you are able to use a antenna computer program.Many on this group have an aversion to computers and thus rely on other means which puts control in book authors. *If you have a similar aversion thats O.K. yeah, right... i am an author, and i also use computers, where does that put me? *EVERYONE on this group must use a computer... kind of hard to use newsgroups like this without a computer. For those who can use a computer they can determine for themselves if antenna programs can be trusted or not. no they can't... not unless they have a sophisticated test setup to do fill size models and measurements to compare predicted with actual results. *YOU don't even have that art, so how can you be so sure that the programs are doing what you think they are doing? Very good. But Richard Harrison does not have a computer thus he relies on books. I'd venture to say that many have books as well as computers but have not used the canned antenna programs. After all cobol, basic, extra basic, fortran e.t.c are outside of their sphere! With that aside your answer questions the veracity of antenna computer programs in the hands of the average ham. That may or may not be true But the members of this group percieve themselves as experts with respect to antennas and I have no doubt that all will arrive at the correct answer individually and that includes yourself As for being sure of the result obtained no one can arrive at the correctness unless they themselves revert to first principles to determine the confines of what is acceptable. On the other hand one can rely on the fact that the approximations provided by computers aligns with your own experiences. Either way to find the solution is totally in your hands, your own choice in how to determine the veracity of antenna computer programs without placing trust in unknowing hands. Is that clear and technical enough for you or has your descision on antenna programs already been made and irreversable? Art |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Jan 11, 11:28*am, "Dave" wrote:
* "Art Unwin" wrote in ... * On Jan 11, 8:40 am, "Dave" wrote: * "Richard Fry" wrote in ... * On Jan 10, 6:59 pm, Art Unwin wrote: * * I gave the reasons for my line of thinking having gone thru the * routine of reading and accepting what the books say. You * spurned my statement giving no reason why it should not be * accepted. * * Not so, Art. * * The simplest reason that you should abandon your line of thinking * about there being no current reflection from the unterminated end * along the outside of all radiators is that such beliefs were proven * invalid by the measured results of Gihring and Brown over 70 years ago * -- as shown in the excerpt of their IRE paper which has been linked to * twice, now. * * RF * * the more it gets quoted the more he will consider it lemming talk and reject * it. art is in his own little world now, full of magical levitating * diamagnetic neutrinos and burrowing anti-eddy currents up the middle of * conductors... of course, where those currents go when they reach the * feedpoint would be an interesting thing to hear, maybe art can comment on * that for a while... they probably just jump up to the surface again and go * around in circles. * Pull your dress down your slip is showing so you can't even come up with another technical comeback? *just got to stoop all the way down to a cheap personal attack. *I guess this thread is over then since you have run out of fun things to say. No,No,Noi There is no evidence that you have a yearning for the backsides of man it is just a play on words which point to your error in thinking. ala the slip. Get it? I have made no attempt to hide my thinking with a torrent of words under the guise of shakespeare to provide cover I provided a single liner. No more, no less |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Building a Solid Copper Ground Pipe {Tube} with an Solid Iron Core. - Also - Water Drilling a Solid Copper Pipe for a Ground Rod. | Shortwave | |||
| Building a Solid Copper Ground Pipe {Tube} with an Solid IronC... | Shortwave | |||
| Building a Solid Copper Ground Pipe {Tube} with an Solid IronC... | Shortwave | |||
| Hollow State Newsletter is now online | Shortwave | |||
| Hollow state news | Boatanchors | |||