|
Tom Bruhns wrote:
Ah, we started out with exact geometric relationships that defined precise points, and now we're down to 20% accuracy being OK. Nope, we started out with a simple rule-of-thumb and here it is: Originating the thread, alhearn wrote: Why does the reactance peak occur slightly earlier than half-wavelength? I responded: Since the monopole is purely resistive around 1/4WL and around 1/2WL, i.e. the reactance is zero at those two points, it is simply impossible for it to be be any other way. Sure looks like a simple relatively innocent rule-of-thumb to me. Absolutely nothing said about exact geometric relationships that define precise points. You then caused the thread to wander in the direction of 0.0000000003 accuracy while I was thinking 20%. I've looked back over my postings and I didn't explicitly state what I was thinking. I thought it was implicit but I didn't explain my differentiation between the value of maximum reactance for a dipole Vs the value of maximum reactance for the SWR circle. My rule-of-thumb is that they are close enough to being the same point, that for ballpark conceptual visualization, they can be thought of as being the same point. I apologize for not being clear on that point. It took me some time to realize that extreme accuracy was the cornerstone of your argument against my rule-of-thumb statements. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Cecil, as an engineer of a few years experience you should know that a
scientist can never be allowed to build a bridge ... it will never be finished because you can never close the flex seams that are used for thermal expansion/contraction. While engineers finish the job by getting close enough to walk/drive off. In a more general tone for the general reader of the list. All engineering/science deals with tolerances. Engineers accept close enough to specifications. Scientists want to understand why another significant digit after the decimal point is not relevant!! :-0 Deacon Dave, W1MCE I've managed both engineers and applied scientists in my 40+ years of engineering design. Both disciplines have much to offer. + + + Cecil Moore wrote: Tom Bruhns wrote: Ah, we started out with exact geometric relationships that defined precise points, and now we're down to 20% accuracy being OK. Nope, we started out with a simple rule-of-thumb and here it is: Originating the thread, alhearn wrote: Why does the reactance peak occur slightly earlier than half-wavelength? I responded: Since the monopole is purely resistive around 1/4WL and around 1/2WL, i.e. the reactance is zero at those two points, it is simply impossible for it to be be any other way. Sure looks like a simple relatively innocent rule-of-thumb to me. Absolutely nothing said about exact geometric relationships that define precise points. You then caused the thread to wander in the direction of 0.0000000003 accuracy while I was thinking 20%. I've looked back over my postings and I didn't explicitly state what I was thinking. I thought it was implicit but I didn't explain my differentiation between the value of maximum reactance for a dipole Vs the value of maximum reactance for the SWR circle. My rule-of-thumb is that they are close enough to being the same point, that for ballpark conceptual visualization, they can be thought of as being the same point. I apologize for not being clear on that point. It took me some time to realize that extreme accuracy was the cornerstone of your argument against my rule-of-thumb statements. |
Dave Shrader wrote:
Cecil, as an engineer of a few years experience you should know that a scientist can never be allowed to build a bridge ... it will never be finished because you can never close the flex seams that are used for thermal expansion/contraction. While engineers finish the job by getting close enough to walk/drive off. There's a dirty little engineering secret in there, Dave. If you don't give the engineer a budget and a deadline, he will keep on improving his design forever. It's the operations (profit) arm of a company that forces the engineer to give up and say it's close enough. Engineers are just low-paid scientist wanabees. If engineers had the same dollar/time budget as the scientists, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in them except maybe in the level of performance. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:25:35 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: The plural "you" is inclusive, which is still a miss-attribution. This compounds the error. Not necessarily, Richard. Necessarily. Your obfuscation compounds the error further. |
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: The plural "you" is inclusive, which is still a miss-attribution. This compounds the error. Not necessarily, Richard. Necessarily. Your obfuscation compounds the error further. Foxnews reports that you contradicted yourself under oath. Why should we bother paying attention to anything you have to say? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:40:17 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Necessarily. Your obfuscation compounds the error further. Foxnews reports that you contradicted yourself under oath. Why should we bother paying attention to anything you have to say? Just goes to show ya, you don't know how to spell either. |
Wait a flippin minute, Cecil!!
Cecil Moore wrote: SNIP There's a dirty little engineering secret in there, Dave. If you don't give the engineer a budget and a deadline, he will keep on improving his design forever. It's the operations (profit) arm of a company that forces the engineer to give up and say it's close enough. SNIP I served as Chief Engineer on a major component of the USAF MX Missile {AKA Peacekeeper S-118] and I'm proud to claim that successful engineering includes meeting all requirements of the following equally weighted factors: 1) Meet ALL specifications. 2) Meet them on time. 3) Meet them below budget. In six years I never requested a waiver to specification, delivered all assets to the USAF typically 30 to 60 days ahead of schedule and completed all engineering tasks at 96% to 97% of authorized budget. Now, to give Cecil his due, the VP of Operations was intensely involved because the contract incentives, increased profit, was based on ALL THREE of these criteria. Moral: Engineering includes technical, schedule and profit performance. Science advances the knowledge in technical fields while the cost and schedule issues are subordinate to the profit motive. Deacon Dave, W1MCE |
Dave Shrader wrote:
Wait a flippin minute, Cecil!! Cecil Moore wrote: There's a dirty little engineering secret in there, Dave. If you don't give the engineer a budget and a deadline, he will keep on improving his design forever. It's the operations (profit) arm of a company that forces the engineer to give up and say it's close enough. 1) Meet ALL specifications. 2) Meet them on time. 3) Meet them below budget. Now, to give Cecil his due, the VP of Operations was intensely involved because the contract incentives, increased profit, was based on ALL THREE of these criteria. Heh, heh, Dave, I think you just proved my point. :-) If you had no time or budget constraints, would you ever be 100% satisfied with any design? I wouldn't. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
... Dave Shrader wrote: snip for brevity, not for slight Heh, heh, Dave, I think you just proved my point. :-) If you had no time or budget constraints, would you ever be 100% satisfied with any design? I wouldn't. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Neither has Porsche been satisfied. I offer as evidence the 911. My new C4S is better than my last C4. So, when is somebody going to make a receiver better than my 75S3B? 73 H. OB On antennas. Bought a couple of the Hi-Q motorized babies, the little one and the BIG (160) one. Really beautiful work. Art, really. Just gorgeous. But. The little one shows 33 ohms at resonance on 20. Returning the BB3 to the Durango, I measure 9 ohms. hmmmm... A little checking and, yup, ~10db better with the BB3. ON 20!! On the Vintage Side Band net today, my ~100 watt S-Line and the BiggIR on the aluminum roof compared well with the Nott BB3 and the 200 watt TS480 in the truck. I'm using a toroidal autoformer to match the 9 ohms giving ~50 ohms at resonance. The Tarheel is about -6db from the Nott. It's a 20 ohm load on 20. ON 20!! Not on 80. They're comparable there; Coil losses dominate. The Tarheel is better built I think. Amazing what 10x more conduction electrons will do (The Nott's COPPER). OTOH this configuration I have is 80 - 20 only. This is all on 20 meters, mind you. The impedance measurements...... I keep saying that....... On 80 and 160 (duh) the Hi-Q should win, while the Tarheel on 80 offers the easiest automation. I think a 4" diameter screwdriver, oops, that was the first 160 DXCC wasn't it? Nobody builds everything I want. Oh well 73 all H. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
o Any smooth impedance curve plotted on a
Smith chart will have maximum reactance at a point on the curve which is tangent to a constant-reactance curve on the chart, or which lies at an end of the impedance curve. Call the impedance at the point of maximum reactance Zm. o Clearly, it will be easier to see the maximum-reactance point if you simply plot the reactance versus the independent variable (such as frequency). o If the maximum reactance is at such a tangency on a Smith chart, the point of tangency will be independent of the reference impedance to which the chart is plotted. o In general, the maximum-reactance point on a constant-SWR circle which passes through Zm will not be at Zm. Call the point of maximum reactance on that constant-SWR circle Zs. o If you change the reference impedance to which the Smith chart is scaled, clearly Zm will still be the maximum reactance point on the impedance curve. However, Zm will in general have a different SWR, and the maximum-reactance point on the new constant-SWR circle which passes through Zm will in general be different from Zs. o In other words, the SWR circles are useless for finding the maximum-reactance point on the impedance curve. Example: Zm = 1000+j800 ohms Ref. Impedance: 50 ohms: SWR = 32.82; Zs for that circle = 821.25+j819.73 Ref. Impedance: 300 ohms: SWR = 5.59; Zs for that circle = 865+j811.31 Ref. Impedance: 600 ohms: SWR = 3.; Zs for that circle = 1000+j800 (The 600 ohm case illustrates that there is no requirement that Zs and Zm differ.) We now return you to your regularly-scheduled obfuscation. |
H. Adam Stevens wrote: SNIP Nobody builds everything I want. Oh well 73 all H. Ah Ha! I see an entrepreneurial [sp?] opportunity for you!! Build it yourself. If it's good .... you contribute to the economy and become $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ beyond your wildest dreams. |
"Dave Shrader" wrote in message news:IyU9c.29578$K91.88263@attbi_s02... H. Adam Stevens wrote: SNIP Nobody builds everything I want. Oh well 73 all H. Ah Ha! I see an entrepreneurial [sp?] opportunity for you!! Build it yourself. If it's good .... you contribute to the economy and become $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ beyond your wildest dreams. Building ham gear? How about "make a tiny profit if you're lucky"? But then there were guys like Collins, Halligan, Swan.......hmmmmmmmm 73 ;^)))))) H. |
Tom Bruhns wrote:
o In other words, the SWR circles are useless for finding the maximum-reactance point on the impedance curve. Useless for finding the *exact* point, yes. Quite useful enough for a lot of ballpark work. For instance, Zs and Zm are usually as close as EZNEC's prediction of antenna feedpoint impedance is to the actual real-world antenna feedpoint impedance. Example: Zm = 1000+j800 ohms Where did this impedance come from? A full wave dipole's feedpoint impedance is usually around 5000+ ohms. The value above does not look like the Xmax impedance between 1/2WL resonance and one-wavelength (anti)resonance for HF thin-wire dipoles. Such a dipole's Xmax impedance is around 3000+j2000 ohms. Does Zm represent the impedance at the Xmax point? It's not the Zmax point. Ref. Impedance: 50 ohms: SWR = 32.82; Zs for that circle = 821.25+j819.73 Ref. Impedance: 300 ohms: SWR = 5.59; Zs for that circle = 865+j811.31 Ref. Impedance: 600 ohms: SWR = 3.; Zs for that circle = 1000+j800 (The 600 ohm case illustrates that there is no requirement that Zs and Zm differ.) That's better than I expected out of my ballpark rule-of-thumb, Tom. Note that Xs is within 2.5% of Xm in all three cases and right on for the type of transmission line that I use. Zs is within 9.5% of Zm. Looks like my estimates were twice as accurate as I had imagined. Thanks for proving my original point. The purpose for my rule-of-thumb is to get me close enough to achieve cut-and-try tuning from that point on. That's also the purpose to which I put EZNEC. In my latest experiment, EZNEC missed the actual resistive component of the impedance by 125% but that's OK because I am close enough to know which way to go from there. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
Tom Bruhns wrote:
Why go looking for a point that's a rough approximation to what we want when we already have just what we want? The point is that we *DON'T* already have what we want. EZNEC is only an approximation. Most people cannot measure the feedpoint impedances of their antennas when it is over a few hundred ohms, so a rule-of-thumb is helpful. The impedance graph in the ARRL Antenna Book is helpful. For any SWR above 5:1, A+jA will be relatively close to the maximum reactance point. Setting A = Rmax/2 will be relatively close to the behavior of a thin-wire HF dipole at the maximum reactance point between 1/2WL and one-wavelength. Exactly what is it that you think "we" already have? Tom, exactly what are you trying to prove by picking all those nits? If I say I weigh about 200 pounds, are you going to argue that I don't weigh 200 pounds - that I acutally weigh 204.3785 pounds? And you didn't say where you got the 1000+j800 ohm value for the maximum reactance point. That looks like an unreasonable value for a thin-wire HF dipole. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation? Presumably because its solutions are better. But like dissatisfaction with the weather, you only have to wait for the change: Most people cannot measure the feedpoint impedances of their antennas when it is over a few hundred ohms, so a rule-of-thumb is helpful. Ah! Back to approximations without references or (dare I say it?) that measurement that "most" people cannot perform. The impedance graph in the ARRL Antenna Book is helpful. Another approximation and to this point no valid comparisons, merely testimonial. what are you trying to prove by picking all those nits? And then the Great Nit-Picker finds one: That looks like an unreasonable value Again, testimonial sans reference or measurement. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation? On the contrary. Most of our models are approximations. Exactly what is your agenda in rejecting approximations? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:19:34 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation? On the contrary. Most of our models are approximations. Exactly what is your agenda in rejecting approximations? On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. |
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation? On the contrary. Most of our models are approximations. Exactly what is your agenda in rejecting approximations? On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being "only an approximation". That is not a negative statement. Too bad you have never learned that everytime you make a measurement, you make an error. There are no 100% accurate measurements. Everything except cardinal numbers is an approximation. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:36:57 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: wrote: Richard Clark wrote: The Great Approximator is arguing against approximation? On the contrary. Most of our models are approximations. Exactly what is your agenda in rejecting approximations? On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question? On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. |
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question? wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. You have obviously missed the point. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an approximation. That includes EZNEC and my rule-of-thumb. "EZNEC is only an approximation", is NOT a negative statement any more than, "You are only a man", is a negative statement. Everything, including precise measurements with expensive instruments, has limitations. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
|
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question? On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. Funny, I have exactly this same problem with my dog. The only response I ever get from her is "Arf", the exact intellectual equivalent of your responses. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Richard Clark wrote in message
There is no discussion as to the genesis of this "approximation." There is no data garnered by experiment to support it. That's simply a false statement. So please tell us what objection do you have to the graphs in the ARRL Antenna Book (a previous reference of mine) from which everything I have said logically follows. I believe Tom's point was that more information was known or available preceding the "approximation" than following it, which portrays the "approximation" as a degradation of knowledge. That's a laugh since most hams are incapable of measuring anything like 3000+j2000 ohms. I have no idea what your (or Tom's) agenda is but it is apparently to convince everyone that shortcuts are useless and only gurus like yourself can bestow the sacred cow knowledge of antennas on us, the unwashed masses. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
|
"Cecil Moore" a écrit dans le message de om... I have no idea what your (or Tom's) agenda is but it is apparently to convince everyone that shortcuts are useless and only gurus like yourself can bestow the sacred cow knowledge of antennas on us, the unwashed masses. Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot. |
"Cecil Moore" a écrit dans le message de om... Richard Clark wrote: wrote: What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question? On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:50:43 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. Funny, I have exactly this same problem with my dog. The only response I ever get from her is "Arf", the exact intellectual equivalent of your responses. Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot. |
"Cecil Moore" a écrit dans le message de om... Richard Clark wrote: wrote: What's the matter, Richard? Can't you answer the question? wrote: EZNEC is only an approximation. You have obviously missed the point. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an approximation. That includes EZNEC and my rule-of-thumb. "EZNEC is only an approximation", is NOT a negative statement any more than, "You are only a man", is a negative statement. Everything, including precise measurements with expensive instruments, has limitations. Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot. |
Richard Clark wrote:
On 31 Mar 2004 18:02:41 -0800, (Cecil Moore) wrote: Richard Clark wrote in message There is no discussion as to the genesis of this "approximation." There is no data garnered by experiment to support it. That's simply a false statement. Recite your data. Once again: The ARRL Antenna Book, 15th edition, page 2-10, the graph of resistance Vs reactance in Fig. 10 for frequencies from f/2 to 2f. The same graph appears as a series of graphs in the ARRL Antenna Book CD, ver. 2.0. Everything I said falls out directly from those graphs. Fig. 10 is for a 1/4WL monopole so it has to be extrapolated for a 1/2WL dipole. The point of maximum reactance is approximately equal to the (anti)resonant resistance divided by 2. The resistance at the point of maximum reactance is approximately equal to the (anti) resonant resistance divided by 2. How can you guys get so upset at someone who simply describes a graph in the ARRL Antenna Book? -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Albert Berouette wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote: I have no idea what your (or Tom's) agenda is but it is apparently to convince everyone that shortcuts are useless and only gurus like yourself can bestow the sacred cow knowledge of antennas on us, the unwashed masses. Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot. If describing a graph from the ARRL Antenna Book makes me a troll and a crackpot, so be it. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Albert wrote,
"Cecil Moore" a écrit dans le message de om... I have no idea what your (or Tom's) agenda is but it is apparently to convince everyone that shortcuts are useless and only gurus like yourself can bestow the sacred cow knowledge of antennas on us, the unwashed masses. Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot. So? What's wrong with that? Cecil is also a fine Texas ham who prods many of us into gaining a deeper knowledge of antennas and transmission lines by challenging our closely held assumptions and making us think more deeply about things we thought we knew. Reg does the same thing, but less tenaciously. As irritating as these gentlemen can be, they perform a valuable function on this newsgroup. You have to goad the ox before it'll move. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Al, WA4GKQ wrote:
"---as frequency is increased past quarter-wave resonance, I`ve noticed with interest that both reactance and resistance peak at different times, as they increase with frequency toward the half-wave point." At the end of the ARRL Antenna Book edoition 19 chapter on Antenna Fundamentals is a bibliography which includes P.H. Lee`s "The Amateur Radio Vertical Antenna Handbook". In my 1974 edition, there are Figs. 18(A) Vertical Antenna Base Resistance and 18(B) Base Reactance, versus height in wavelengths. Figs. 18(A) and (B) clearly show the variation of R and X just short of 1/2-wavelength and their dependence on the characteristic impedance of the antenna. If the "Antenna Book" doesn`t have the information, one of the bibliography books most lilkely does. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 09:31:24 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: On 31 Mar 2004 18:02:41 -0800, (Cecil Moore) wrote: Richard Clark wrote in message There is no discussion as to the genesis of this "approximation." There is no data garnered by experiment to support it. That's simply a false statement. Recite your data. Once again: I am satisfied. You have no data, no measurements, and no references for your "approximation." It is simply another of the Old Wife's Tales genre. |
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Recite your data. Once again: References deliberately deleted by Richard. To what purpose? I am satisfied. You have no data, no measurements, and no references for your "approximation." It is simply another of the Old Wife's Tales genre. Well, since you deleted my reference, we can assume your intent is unethical, uncivil, and irrational. It's essentially a no-brainer, Richard. The resonant feedpoint impedance for a 1/2WL resonant dipole is around 60 ohms. The anti-resonant resonant feedpoint impedance for a one-wavelength dipole is around 6000 ohms. Between those two values of frequency, the reactance goes from zero, peaks, and goes back to zero. How you can argue with that is beyond belief. All this is clearly shown in my references that you deleted. Why are you afraid to face the facts? -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:33:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: All this is clearly shown in my references that you deleted. None of which support your "approximation" |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:33:43 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: All this is clearly shown in my references that you deleted. None of which support your "approximation" Uhhhhh Richard, Those graphs in the ARRL Antenna Book are the *ORIGIN* of my approximation. Exactly what is it about those graphs that you disagree with? It is obvious from viewing the graphs that the maximum reactance is about 1/2 of the maximum resistance. It is also obvious that the resistance at the maximum reactance point is about 1/2 of the maximum resistance. That's exactly what my approximation said. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 17:22:28 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: That's exactly what my approximation said. You cover so many bases, it could prove you discovered Saddam - approximately. ;-) Like I said, I am satisfied you have no measurements, no data, etc.... |
Richard Clark wrote:
Like I said, I am satisfied you have no measurements, no data, etc.... I am satisfied that your brain is suffering from proton decay a few trillion years ahead of the predicted time. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On 31-Mar-2004, "Albert Berouette" wrote: Cecil Moore is a troll and a crackpot. Three times and you're out! P L O N K ! |
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:09:28 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Like I said, I am satisfied you have no measurements, no data, etc.... I am satisfied that your brain is suffering from proton decay a few trillion years ahead of the predicted time. Do you have any measurements, data, references. This another Old Wife's Tale? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com