On 31 Mar 2004 08:27:20 -0800, (Cecil Moore)
wrote:

Everything,
including precise measurements with expensive instruments, has
limitations.

I note no measurement with instruments, expensive nor inexpensive, no
expression of limitations, no references - simply innuendo. Innuendo
is not approximation. There is no discussion as to the genesis of
this "approximation." There is no data garnered by experiment to
support it. There are no correlatives to associate it. Nothing
educational, no generality. As such, all the quality of the Old
Wife's Tale.

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. The process of the
"approximation" has so many constraints as to fall out of the field of
a generality, which is the common understanding of "approximation."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

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.

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! =-----

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"

"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.

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