Cecil wrote,

Tdonaly wrote:
Cecil should read before he thinks.

Tom, why do you require 6 decimal point precision out
of a ballpark rule-of-thumb estimate? The maximum reactance
point of a thin-wire dipole is in the neighborhood of the maximum
reactance point of the SWR circle as proved by the graphs in the
ARRL Antenna Book CD.
The maximum reactance is approximately equal
to 1/2 the maximum resistance. The resistance at the maximum reactance
point is approximately equal to 1/2 the maximum resistance. If someone
carries those ballpark concepts around in his head, he will be
reasonably close to reality. It's all cut-and-try after that.


Cecil, I know you have the Balanis book and that you even took a course
from the great man, himself. You can crack the book and look at the
curves as well as anyone can. You can also read the rest of the
explanation, and, with a lot of work, puzzle it out and improve your
understanding so you don't have to rely on rules of thumb that get you
into arguments like this.

Exactly what agenda forces you to sacrifice your reputation trying to
find some unusual esoteric exception to my statements? (Never mind,
I already know the answer.)

I don't have a reputation. If I did it wouldn't mean anything to me anyway.
Balanis is hardly an "unusual esoteric exception." If you think I have an
"agenda" you're letting your paranoia get the better of you. (No, I'm not
looking for a job on Kerry's campaign committee.)

--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tdonaly wrote:
... so you don't have to rely on rules of thumb that get you
into arguments like this.

Nice try at obfuscation, Tom, but I have previously identified my postings
as only rules of thumb. You attempted to hold my rules of thumb to 0.00000000003
accuracy. Doesn't that make you feel the least bit silly? That's stretching
things pretty far to try to prove that anyone who believes in reflected waves
is crazy. Have you figured out how standing waves can occur without the existence
of reflected waves yet? I've been holding my breath for that proof you promised.

If my rules of thumb are within 20% accuracy, I consider that pretty good.

And here I repeat my rules of thumb. The ratio of the resonant feedpoint impedance
to the antiresonant impedance of a dipole is about 100 to 1. The maximum reactance
point between those two frequencies is about Rmax/2+jRmax/2. If you can't prove
that rule of thumb is less than 20% accurate, you have no argument.
--
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 wrote,

Tdonaly wrote:
... so you don't have to rely on rules of thumb that get you
into arguments like this.

Nice try at obfuscation, Tom, but I have previously identified my postings
as only rules of thumb. You attempted to hold my rules of thumb to
0.00000000003
accuracy. Doesn't that make you feel the least bit silly? That's stretching
things pretty far to try to prove that anyone who believes in reflected waves
is crazy. Have you figured out how standing waves can occur without the
existence
of reflected waves yet? I've been holding my breath for that proof you
promised.


I think you've got your Toms mixed up, Cecil. I haven't said anything about
0.000...003 accuracy. The rest of your post you'll have to take up with
Tom Bruhns, although I think your comments on whether or not I "believe
in" reflected waves is unmitigated balderdash.
I'm going to quit posting on this, Cecil. Your replies are
irrational and it's clear that the strain of dealing with two Toms at once
is too hard on your head.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tdonaly wrote:
... I think your comments on whether or not I "believe
in" reflected waves is unmitigated balderdash.

Have you changed your mind from last time?
--
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! =-----

Tdonaly wrote:
I think you've got your Toms mixed up, Cecil. I haven't said anything about
0.000...003 accuracy.

I didn't say you did, Tom. That "you" I used was plural. Maybe
I should have said "y'all"?
--
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 12:10:36 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Tdonaly wrote:
I think you've got your Toms mixed up, Cecil. I haven't said anything about
0.000...003 accuracy.

I didn't say you did, Tom. That "you" I used was plural. Maybe
I should have said "y'all"?

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:14:03 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Nice try at obfuscation,

The plural "you" is inclusive, which is still a miss-attribution.
This compounds the error.

Richard Clark wrote:
The plural "you" is inclusive, which is still a miss-attribution.
This compounds the error.

Not necessarily, Richard. I can say to an Oklahoma State basketball
player, "You won your last game", even though he sat on the bench the
entire game and didn't score any points. All members of the
same team are guilty by association if not by actions.
--
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.