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?