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! =-----