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