Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

Quite Droll, I must admit. 3 MILLION Angstroms Hmmm? This is not a
unit of frequency by the way, so I suppose some elementary instruction
is in order.

SNIP

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

My 4.0 MHz antenna is 120 feet. Is the unit of feet not a measure of
wavelength? Could I not use a furlong as a unit of length?

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

DD

"Dave Shrader" wrote in message
news:eURcc.82679$gA5.1031413@attbi_s03...
Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

Quite Droll, I must admit. 3 MILLION Angstroms Hmmm? This is not a
unit of frequency by the way, so I suppose some elementary instruction
is in order.

SNIP

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

My 4.0 MHz antenna is 120 feet. Is the unit of feet not a measure of
wavelength? Could I not use a furlong as a unit of length?

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

DD


he said frequency - not wavelength

Roger Conroy wrote:

"Dave Shrader" wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Quite Droll, I must admit. 3 MILLION Angstroms Hmmm? This is not a
unit of frequency by the way, so I suppose some elementary instruction
is in order.

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

he said frequency - not wavelength

He said frequency and then turned around and used wavelength. Wavelength
is also NOT a unit of frequency. His "elementary instruction" violated
his own objection and was thus inconsistent.
--
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 Wed, 07 Apr 2004 09:39:01 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

He said frequency and then turned around and used wavelength. Wavelength
is also NOT a unit of frequency. His "elementary instruction" violated
his own objection and was thus inconsistent.

HE Knows both the Frequency AND the Wavelength and demonstrated you
know neither. :-)

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
He said frequency and then turned around and used wavelength. Wavelength
is also NOT a unit of frequency. His "elementary instruction" violated
his own objection and was thus inconsistent.

HE Knows both the Frequency AND the Wavelength ...

Actually, HE hasn't yet demonstrated that to be true. :-)
--
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 Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:55:24 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

DD


he said frequency - not wavelength

Thanx Roger,

I am not such the pedant as to demand frequency however. But for this
particular exercise 0.3mm is invisible to everyone, as is 0.03mm,
0.003mm, or 0.0003mm. The revealing point is that there is no
wavelength with a significant three that is visible!

Such is my style to reveal the paucity of experience. As for this
mystery frequency/wavelength/color, I will offer a clue, very very
short so as to not confuse (but it will) in a follow up post to this
as an attempt to mine the humor beyond its expiration date :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Na

Ar

Dave Shrader wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

Quite Droll, I must admit. 3 MILLION Angstroms Hmmm? This is not a
unit of frequency by the way, so I suppose some elementary instruction
is in order.

SNIP

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

It's even worse than that, Dave. Richard said Angstroms are not a
measure of *FREQUENCY* and then turned around and used wavelength
which is also NOT a measure of frequency. One wonders why his
non-frequency units are superior to mine. :-)
--
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 Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:48:26 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

Quite Droll, I must admit. 3 MILLION Angstroms Hmmm? This is not a
unit of frequency by the way, so I suppose some elementary instruction
is in order.

SNIP

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

My 4.0 MHz antenna is 120 feet. Is the unit of feet not a measure of
wavelength? Could I not use a furlong as a unit of length?

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

DD

Hello OM,

In the Navy my students learned at every level of instruction to:
RTMFQ!
That question was:
name what frequency glare is.

Now and then a student would come through who would respond
"the frequency is such and such meters"
as they passed out into the fleet as a deck-ape.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC