On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:18:51 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
I notice nothing other than a cartoon, ...

I'm sorry if this seems like rocket science
to you.

And this from the cartoonist.

It readily explains how poorly the gejoken experiment started. Let's
see how many yuks it will get through conventional issues

I used toroidal pickups at the current
sample points and viewed the current waveforms
on a 100 MHz dual-trace oscilloscope.

No mention of make, no readings, no pretense at discussion of those
things that contribute to error (and, as such, no need for Cecil to
apologize for being wrong until he is painted into his usual corner).

So, from this sloppiness called
anyone performs that experiment in a valid manner,
I suppose I have to fill in the blanks and watch Cecil sputter that it
wasn't like that at ALL!!! The cartoonist is most comfortable in
simple things, certainly; but measurement is best left to
professionals.

measure a ~25 nS delay
which is the same as a 40 MHz event, but in some "100 MHz" scopes, and
depending upon a myriad of settings (anyone practiced in the art would
realize how many), signal amplitude being one; that same BW can tumble
to 20 MHz to the unsuspecting user's surprise (Cecil can now react in
mock surprised shock). With a roll-off of 3dB per octave (another
concept that is foreign to digital engineers, such is Cecil's legacy),
phase measurement errors begin to run away. We don't even get the
Sunday comics form of math!

OK, so
measure a ~25 nS delay
is so much of a hodge-podge, a place marker, a spit into the wind,
something summoned up for the unwashed so the author could bask in
their awe-shucks. If we were to simply accept it (GASP!), what does
it say of the delay introduction of the
toroidal pickups at the current sample points

More magik happens here no doubt. I won't ask Cecil what his data is
for these items because he doesn't have any (at least until he
rummages up the dutch courage to fake it).

And what about the phase issues of the 4000 Ohm resistor (which
conveniently snubs what might be found in the rest of the antenna now
long discarded such that this becomes an onanistic exercise)? Again,
no point in asking for data that doesn't exist (you can't even fake
it). Magik abounds because Cecil's best work is cartoonistry, not
science, and certainly not rocket science.

So, a very quick enumeration of points any experimenter would have
come into the discussion with, rather than trailing behind like a
dancing bear with blisters.

But I like gejoken experiments, and Cecil's clowning offers the
dovetail to Art's when he isn't here complaining about the nails in
his hands. I would give this, maybe, 3 yuks.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
With a roll-off of 3dB per octave (another
concept that is foreign to digital engineers, such is Cecil's legacy),
phase measurement errors begin to run away.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot your earlier postings. Only
you are capable of measurements. Everyone else in the
world sucks. This from the person who asserts that
the reflections from non-reflective glass are brighter
than the surface of the sun.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:18:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
With a roll-off of 3dB per octave (another
concept that is foreign to digital engineers, such is Cecil's legacy),
phase measurement errors begin to run away.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot your earlier postings.

Almost remembering is equally handicapped.

Only you are capable of measurements.

Hardly, more the point is noting those who are not capable and clearly
demonstrate their ineptitude. I've ushered you through more than a
few of these to then hear your excuses of age, infirmity, poor
reading, and so on. You have the unfortunate circumstance of having
inhabited a binary world where there are only two answers - both
resolvable only to one place in the absence of noise. Ours is an
analog world that copes with noise and error, and what counts in life
is how much error. I enumerated several sources, you respond to none
(a binary choice). You allude to my capability for measurement as I
have measured the error of such scopes as yours and fixed them. You
are simply hoping your scope is within its range of capability and we
have yet to hear any reports of readings that would either confirm or
deny your claim. Well, if you don't provide the data, no one can call
you on a failure, right? Another binary choice that struggles for
breath in an analog world.

Let's look at the -3dB roll-off point and I ask you, how many degrees
of slippage does it represent? 0 and 1 are not competent answers.

Everyone else in the world sucks.

A typical binary perspective and you are glad to force the choice. The
analog equivalent is some"one" else in the world sucks. It could be
parts-per-billion/million/thousand/hundred - but we can both agree
that rhetorically you've scored your point.

This from the person who asserts that
the reflections from non-reflective glass are brighter
than the surface of the sun.

From your data, from your math, and from your argument. You couldn't
account for the missing energy, so you swept it under the prayer rug
with a mystical chant and abridged readings from your Psalter. Choose
another topic for the same outcome, you've suffered many such
technical comparisons.

Richard Clark wrote:
You are simply hoping your scope
is within its range of capability ...

Measuring the delay of a 4 MHz RF signal through a
device is hardly any different from measuring the
delay of a 4 MHz digital square wave. Measuring
the time from one zero-crossing to another is
virtually a no-brainer. It doesn't take much of
a setup to detect the difference between 25nS
for the traveling wave current and w8ji's measured
3 nS or w7el's measured undetectabe (faster than
light?) phase difference using the total current
in a standing wave antenna which is 90% standing
wave current.

Please design and run your own perfect experiment
for determining the delay of a traveling wave through
a 75m bugcatcher coil. I guarantee, if you perform it
in a valid manner, it will agree qualitatively with
my experiment.

What is it about the phase shift in 90 degrees of
monopole that you don't understand?
************************************************** **
EZNEC+ ver. 4.0
thin-wire 1/4WL vertical 4/16/2009 6:33:09 AM
--------------- CURRENT DATA ---------------
Frequency = 7.29 MHz
Wire No. 1:
Segment Conn Magnitude (A.) Phase (Deg.)
1 Ground 1 0.00
2 .97651 -0.42
3 .93005 -0.83
4 .86159 -1.19
5 .77258 -1.50
6 .66485 -1.78
7 .54059 -2.04
8 .40213 -2.28
9 .25161 -2.50
10 Open .08883 -2.71
************************************************** *

From your data, from your math, and from your argument.

There was no missing energy. Your superposition of
power was the problem. A three watt wave does not
destructively interfere with a two watt wave to
obtain a one watt result. That was explained to
you years ago when you first made that conceptual
error. The correct power merging equation must
contain an interference term unless the two
interfering waves are 90 degrees out of phase.

Hint: 3w + 2w - 2*SQRT(3w*2w) = 0.101 watts

There's no missing energy!
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:40:33 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
You are simply hoping your scope
is within its range of capability ...

Measuring the delay of a 4 MHz RF signal through a device

This is all the naive hope of absolute faith (a binary choice) in an
instrument where you cannot distinguish between capability and desire.
Let's face it. The enumeration of readings, the descriptions of all
elements in full is very trivial and within the grasp of any ordinary
bench tech. That it is so wholly missing from your discussion means
that its revelation would expose a major error of design, or would
reveal you are not practiced in the art of analog engineering.

You've had time enough to back-fill your virtual notebook with these
details of normal procedure. Their sudden arrival in successive
discussion won't have much authenticity.

What is it about the phase shift in 90 degrees of
monopole that you don't understand?

You are more flummoxed by the simpler problem of your own instrument's
introduction of phase error at the -3dB point. If you cannot
reconcile that at the bench, then this navel gazing problem of yours
is sterile and pointless.

From your data, from your math, and from your argument.

There was no missing energy.

More faith and hoping which culminates in the absurd:

A three watt wave

This arrives from your fog of memory, a poor device I warned you about
in the last post. As I pointed out, same outcome.

Is your apology of age, infirmity, or sloughing accuracy for speed
next?

On Apr 16, 12:29*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:40:33 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
You are simply hoping your scope
is within its range of capability ...

Measuring the delay of a 4 MHz RF signal through a device

This is all the naive hope of absolute faith (a binary choice) in an
instrument where you cannot distinguish between capability and desire.
Let's face it. *The enumeration of readings, the descriptions of all
elements in full is very trivial and within the grasp of any ordinary
bench tech. *That it is so wholly missing from your discussion means
that its revelation would expose a major error of design, or would
reveal you are not practiced in the art of analog engineering.

You've had time enough to back-fill your virtual notebook with these
details of normal procedure. *Their sudden arrival in successive
discussion won't have much authenticity.

What is it about the phase shift in 90 degrees of
monopole that you don't understand?

You are more flummoxed by the simpler problem of your own instrument's
introduction of phase error at the -3dB point. *If you cannot
reconcile that at the bench, then this navel gazing problem of yours
is sterile and pointless.

From your data, from your math, and from your argument.

There was no missing energy.

More faith and hoping which culminates in the absurd:

A three watt wave

This arrives from your fog of memory, a poor device I warned you about
in the last post. *As I pointed out, same outcome.

Is your apology of age, infirmity, or sloughing accuracy for speed
next?

Having scanned the above posting or what ever it is. I have a new
respect for those that hunt for relics with scrip on it and try to
decifer the meaning of such a wierd collection of shapes and scrawls.
Obviously a lot of work and fraustration which is nothing compared to
the disapointment of finally realising the content of the work under
study. Line after line of unrelating words with no connections between
the lines
which is obviously that of a child that faking an adult posture.
Put yourself into the bottle you just finished and hurl yourself out
to sea for the ages.

Art Unwin wrote:
... which is obviously that of a child that faking an adult posture.
Put yourself into the bottle you just finished and hurl yourself out
to sea for the ages.

I used to have a fuzz-phrase generator card. It had
three columns of ten words each. One could think
up any three digit number and then read the three
word fuzz-phrase off the card. 123 might result in:

flummoxed simpler problem

343 might be:

navel gazing problem

Richard has obviously written a similar computer
program except it seems to have ten columns of
100 words each.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Having scanned the above posting or what ever it is. I have a new
respect for those that hunt for relics with scrip on it and try to
decifer the meaning of such a wierd collection of shapes and scrawls.

In your case, they usually begin with trying to make sense of your
Tudor grammar and spelling (probably why you spit on that up and
coming Shakespeare and his new-fangled writing).

Richard Clark wrote:
More faith and hoping which culminates in the absurd:

Sorry Richard, I am not responsible for your ignorance
which is considerable. Exactly where did you get your
engineering degree?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:00:43 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Sorry Richard,

Ah come on now, you aren't sorry at all. That is probably your worst
excuse, but any port in a storm.

I am not responsible for your ignorance

Given the fog of your memory, we will visit these issues again (like 4
watts in a wave - what a howler!) when they appear fresh to you ;-)