|
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/29/2014 11:41 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 11:00 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip The whole design of the Smith chart was to give an approximation of what occurs. But you wouldn't know that from the web pages you read. The whole point of the Smith chart was to provide a tool to solve practical problems in the real world. The problems solved by the Smith chart do not need 10 decimal places of accuracy and the accuracy of a Smith chart is on the same level as a slide rule, which was the standard instrument for solving problems at the time the Smith chart was invented. No, a slipstick in the hands of someone proficient in its use is much more accurate than a Smith Chart. Utter nonsense; a decent sized Smith chart with a sharp pencil is every bit as accurate as a slide rule, and for the answers obtained, even more accurate as a Smith chart does NOT lose digits in intermediate calculations. I see you never used a slipstick, either. It was a required course when I was in college - and we had to be QUITE accurate. Whoop-de-****ing doo; you took a course. Accurate on a slide rule means 2 significant digits unless you are lucky and the answer falls somewhere you can get 3 digits. For involved calculations that means the best you can expect for a final result is 2 digits that are worth anything. A Smith chart easily gives 2 significant digits. All your puffery about approximation is just nonsensee. You say that because you don't have the math to understand how a Smith Chart works. I say that because I have actually used Smith charts to solve real world problems. You say that because you don't have the math to understand how a Smith Chart works. Oh, shove your superior attitude up you ass. I understand the math behind a Smith chart quite well, thank you. FYI once the HP65 came out, I abandoned Smith charts, Nyquist plots, and a whole raft of other such aids for programs on the little tapes I wrote. Wow. Gee, I'm impressed! ROFLMAO! The point being, ass hole, it that I HAD to know the math to generate a program that did the same thing as a Smith chart. Since you don't understand, no one else can, either. Just another babbling ad hominem from the guy who by declaration is never wrong about anything. Just an acute observation about what you say. ROFLMAO! And I never said you had to know the math to USE the Smith Chart. I said you had to know the math to UNDERSTAND the Smith Chart. But you can't even understand that difference. You only need to know the math to understand HOW the Smith chart works, but not to use a Smith chart and get real world answers to real world problems. I NEVER said you needed to know the math to USE a Smith Chart. I said you need the math to UNDERSTAND the Smith Chart. Which you obviously don't, or you wouldn't be making such comments. Nope, only if you mean understand how to design a Smith chart. No, I mean to UNDERSTAND the Smith Chart. Anyone can be an appliance operator. Care to define understand? Do you mean how to use a Smith chart and get results? Do you mean how to design a Smith chart so it can be printed? You need no math to read SWR from a Smith chart or to know what SWR is. I never said you couldn't USE it. But you obviously don't UNDERSTAND it. But then I expect nothing less from the troll. I expect nothing more but babbling, high horse nonsense from the self proclaimed master of everything. No, not master of anything. But I know a lot more than trolls like you do. Shove your superior attitude up your ass next to your head. -- Jim Pennino |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/29/2014 3:09 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 11:41 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 11:00 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip The whole design of the Smith chart was to give an approximation of what occurs. But you wouldn't know that from the web pages you read. The whole point of the Smith chart was to provide a tool to solve practical problems in the real world. The problems solved by the Smith chart do not need 10 decimal places of accuracy and the accuracy of a Smith chart is on the same level as a slide rule, which was the standard instrument for solving problems at the time the Smith chart was invented. No, a slipstick in the hands of someone proficient in its use is much more accurate than a Smith Chart. Utter nonsense; a decent sized Smith chart with a sharp pencil is every bit as accurate as a slide rule, and for the answers obtained, even more accurate as a Smith chart does NOT lose digits in intermediate calculations. I see you never used a slipstick, either. It was a required course when I was in college - and we had to be QUITE accurate. Whoop-de-****ing doo; you took a course. Accurate on a slide rule means 2 significant digits unless you are lucky and the answer falls somewhere you can get 3 digits. Accuracy was at least 3-4 significant digits - something required for engineering before calculators became available. Oh, horse****; you are delusional. For involved calculations that means the best you can expect for a final result is 2 digits that are worth anything. A Smith chart easily gives 2 significant digits. Yup, that's about all you can get from a Smith Chart. Maybe 3, if you're lucky. Yup, same as a slide rule unless your slide rule is several feet long. All your puffery about approximation is just nonsensee. You say that because you don't have the math to understand how a Smith Chart works. I say that because I have actually used Smith charts to solve real world problems. You say that because you don't have the math to understand how a Smith Chart works. Oh, shove your superior attitude up you ass. I understand the math behind a Smith chart quite well, thank you. You have proven just the opposite. I have attempted to prove nothing nor do I feel any obligation to prove anything to a big mouth bull ****er such as you. FYI once the HP65 came out, I abandoned Smith charts, Nyquist plots, and a whole raft of other such aids for programs on the little tapes I wrote. Wow. Gee, I'm impressed! ROFLMAO! The point being, ass hole, it that I HAD to know the math to generate a program that did the same thing as a Smith chart. What book did you copy it out of? Did you mean which textbook was used in the course on Smith charts? Since you don't understand, no one else can, either. Just another babbling ad hominem from the guy who by declaration is never wrong about anything. Just an acute observation about what you say. ROFLMAO! And I never said you had to know the math to USE the Smith Chart. I said you had to know the math to UNDERSTAND the Smith Chart. But you can't even understand that difference. You only need to know the math to understand HOW the Smith chart works, but not to use a Smith chart and get real world answers to real world problems. I NEVER said you needed to know the math to USE a Smith Chart. I said you need the math to UNDERSTAND the Smith Chart. Which you obviously don't, or you wouldn't be making such comments. Nope, only if you mean understand how to design a Smith chart. No, I mean to UNDERSTAND the Smith Chart. Anyone can be an appliance operator. Care to define understand? Do you mean how to use a Smith chart and get results? Do you mean how to design a Smith chart so it can be printed? I mean understanding the math behind it so that you understand what it is telling you - not just the pretty pictures. Babble. One does not need to know the math of SWR to derive SWR from a Smith chart or to know what SWR means or know what to do with SWR. You need no math to read SWR from a Smith chart or to know what SWR is. I never said you couldn't USE it. But you obviously don't UNDERSTAND it. But then I expect nothing less from the troll. I expect nothing more but babbling, high horse nonsense from the self proclaimed master of everything. No, not master of anything. But I know a lot more than trolls like you do. Shove your superior attitude up your ass next to your head. You're now showing your real nature, troll. Don't like to be proven wrong, do you? When that happens I'll let you know. -- Jim Pennino |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
On 1/29/2014 3:40 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 3:09 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 11:41 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 11:00 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip The whole design of the Smith chart was to give an approximation of what occurs. But you wouldn't know that from the web pages you read. The whole point of the Smith chart was to provide a tool to solve practical problems in the real world. The problems solved by the Smith chart do not need 10 decimal places of accuracy and the accuracy of a Smith chart is on the same level as a slide rule, which was the standard instrument for solving problems at the time the Smith chart was invented. No, a slipstick in the hands of someone proficient in its use is much more accurate than a Smith Chart. Utter nonsense; a decent sized Smith chart with a sharp pencil is every bit as accurate as a slide rule, and for the answers obtained, even more accurate as a Smith chart does NOT lose digits in intermediate calculations. I see you never used a slipstick, either. It was a required course when I was in college - and we had to be QUITE accurate. Whoop-de-****ing doo; you took a course. Accurate on a slide rule means 2 significant digits unless you are lucky and the answer falls somewhere you can get 3 digits. Accuracy was at least 3-4 significant digits - something required for engineering before calculators became available. Oh, horse****; you are delusional. For involved calculations that means the best you can expect for a final result is 2 digits that are worth anything. A Smith chart easily gives 2 significant digits. Yup, that's about all you can get from a Smith Chart. Maybe 3, if you're lucky. Yup, same as a slide rule unless your slide rule is several feet long. A slide rule in an experienced hand is accurate to at least 3 significant figures, and in the low and, 4. They would be worthless as an engineering tool if they were only good to two significant digits. All your puffery about approximation is just nonsensee. You say that because you don't have the math to understand how a Smith Chart works. I say that because I have actually used Smith charts to solve real world problems. You say that because you don't have the math to understand how a Smith Chart works. Oh, shove your superior attitude up you ass. I understand the math behind a Smith chart quite well, thank you. You have proven just the opposite. I have attempted to prove nothing nor do I feel any obligation to prove anything to a big mouth bull ****er such as you. Your words have proven just the opposite. FYI once the HP65 came out, I abandoned Smith charts, Nyquist plots, and a whole raft of other such aids for programs on the little tapes I wrote. Wow. Gee, I'm impressed! ROFLMAO! The point being, ass hole, it that I HAD to know the math to generate a program that did the same thing as a Smith chart. What book did you copy it out of? Did you mean which textbook was used in the course on Smith charts? No, I mean which library book did you copy it out of? Since you don't understand, no one else can, either. Just another babbling ad hominem from the guy who by declaration is never wrong about anything. Just an acute observation about what you say. ROFLMAO! And I never said you had to know the math to USE the Smith Chart. I said you had to know the math to UNDERSTAND the Smith Chart. But you can't even understand that difference. You only need to know the math to understand HOW the Smith chart works, but not to use a Smith chart and get real world answers to real world problems. I NEVER said you needed to know the math to USE a Smith Chart. I said you need the math to UNDERSTAND the Smith Chart. Which you obviously don't, or you wouldn't be making such comments. Nope, only if you mean understand how to design a Smith chart. No, I mean to UNDERSTAND the Smith Chart. Anyone can be an appliance operator. Care to define understand? Do you mean how to use a Smith chart and get results? Do you mean how to design a Smith chart so it can be printed? I mean understanding the math behind it so that you understand what it is telling you - not just the pretty pictures. Babble. One does not need to know the math of SWR to derive SWR from a Smith chart or to know what SWR means or know what to do with SWR. No, but one needs the math to understand what the chart is telling you. Without understanding the math, all you can get is the SWR (and related). Ever use a Smith Chart to design an oscillator? It can be quite useful. You need no math to read SWR from a Smith chart or to know what SWR is. I never said you couldn't USE it. But you obviously don't UNDERSTAND it. But then I expect nothing less from the troll. I expect nothing more but babbling, high horse nonsense from the self proclaimed master of everything. No, not master of anything. But I know a lot more than trolls like you do. Shove your superior attitude up your ass next to your head. You're now showing your real nature, troll. Don't like to be proven wrong, do you? When that happens I'll let you know. You are regularly proven wrong, in multiple newsgroups, by multiple people. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/29/2014 3:40 PM, wrote: snip Yup, same as a slide rule unless your slide rule is several feet long. A slide rule in an experienced hand is accurate to at least 3 significant figures, and in the low and, 4. They would be worthless as an engineering tool if they were only good to two significant digits. Utter horse****. snip I have attempted to prove nothing nor do I feel any obligation to prove anything to a big mouth bull ****er such as you. Your words have proven just the opposite. Utter nonsense. snip What book did you copy it out of? Did you mean which textbook was used in the course on Smith charts? No, I mean which library book did you copy it out of? **** off and die, lunatic. snip One does not need to know the math of SWR to derive SWR from a Smith chart or to know what SWR means or know what to do with SWR. No, but one needs the math to understand what the chart is telling you. Without understanding the math, all you can get is the SWR (and related). Babbling horse****. Ever use a Smith Chart to design an oscillator? It can be quite useful. No need for such a trivial task. snip. You are regularly proven wrong, in multiple newsgroups, by multiple people. Utter horse****. You reqularly spread horse**** and your meg-ego in every newsgroup you post in. -- Jim Pennino |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
On 1/29/2014 4:56 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 3:40 PM, wrote: snip Yup, same as a slide rule unless your slide rule is several feet long. A slide rule in an experienced hand is accurate to at least 3 significant figures, and in the low and, 4. They would be worthless as an engineering tool if they were only good to two significant digits. Utter horse****. You obviously have no idea how to use a slide rule, either. snip I have attempted to prove nothing nor do I feel any obligation to prove anything to a big mouth bull ****er such as you. Your words have proven just the opposite. Utter nonsense. A typical comment from a troll. snip What book did you copy it out of? Did you mean which textbook was used in the course on Smith charts? No, I mean which library book did you copy it out of? **** off and die, lunatic. Even more mature! snip One does not need to know the math of SWR to derive SWR from a Smith chart or to know what SWR means or know what to do with SWR. No, but one needs the math to understand what the chart is telling you. Without understanding the math, all you can get is the SWR (and related). Babbling horse****. Ah, back to this again. Ever use a Smith Chart to design an oscillator? It can be quite useful. No need for such a trivial task. Wrong again. snip. You are regularly proven wrong, in multiple newsgroups, by multiple people. Utter horse****. ROFLMAO! You reqularly spread horse**** and your meg-ego in every newsgroup you post in. No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
wrote in message ... colossal snippage You only need to know the math to understand HOW the Smith chart works, but not to use a Smith chart and get real world answers to real world problems. I never will appreciate the usefulness of a Smith chart because all I ever did with it was to determine if all the points fell on or inside the nominal 3:1 circle that was inscribed on the chart. The plotted impedance points came off an analyzer that was sequentially tuned to a comb of frequencies. I never did any math except on my time card: 8+8+8+8+8=40. I understand that the trace can be rotated and shifted with the inclusion of reactive components at the feedpoint but that was the contracted responsibility of others. Someday, maybe I'll learn it but so many other things are already lined up, waiting for me. "Sal" |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. Nope, you are a delusional know it all with an inflated sense of self importance that doesn't know what the word "troll" means and a tool box consisting only of ad hominem attacks. -- Jim Pennino |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
On 1/29/2014 5:36 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. Nope, you are a delusional know it all with an inflated sense of self importance that doesn't know what the word "troll" means and a tool box consisting only of ad hominem attacks. No., I correct trolls when they are wrong. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/29/2014 5:36 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. Nope, you are a delusional know it all with an inflated sense of self importance that doesn't know what the word "troll" means and a tool box consisting only of ad hominem attacks. No., I correct trolls when they are wrong. Sure you do, in your delusions of granduer. -- Jim Pennino |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
On 1/30/2014 12:57 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:36 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. Nope, you are a delusional know it all with an inflated sense of self importance that doesn't know what the word "troll" means and a tool box consisting only of ad hominem attacks. No., I correct trolls when they are wrong. Sure you do, in your delusions of granduer. I'm glad you agree that I correct trolls when they are wrong. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/30/2014 12:57 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:36 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. Nope, you are a delusional know it all with an inflated sense of self importance that doesn't know what the word "troll" means and a tool box consisting only of ad hominem attacks. No., I correct trolls when they are wrong. Sure you do, in your delusions of granduer. I'm glad you agree that I correct trolls when they are wrong. Yep, in your delusions of granduer. -- Jim Pennino |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
On 1/30/2014 1:44 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/30/2014 12:57 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:36 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. Nope, you are a delusional know it all with an inflated sense of self importance that doesn't know what the word "troll" means and a tool box consisting only of ad hominem attacks. No., I correct trolls when they are wrong. Sure you do, in your delusions of granduer. I'm glad you agree that I correct trolls when they are wrong. Yep, in your delusions of granduer. ROFLMAO! Sorry about your delusions of competence. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/30/2014 1:44 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/30/2014 12:57 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:36 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. Nope, you are a delusional know it all with an inflated sense of self importance that doesn't know what the word "troll" means and a tool box consisting only of ad hominem attacks. No., I correct trolls when they are wrong. Sure you do, in your delusions of granduer. I'm glad you agree that I correct trolls when they are wrong. Yep, in your delusions of granduer. ROFLMAO! Sorry about your delusions of competence. One wonders just how long I can keep toying with this idiot and his obsessive need to get in the last word. -- Jim Pennino |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
On 1/30/2014 2:40 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/30/2014 1:44 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/30/2014 12:57 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:36 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. Nope, you are a delusional know it all with an inflated sense of self importance that doesn't know what the word "troll" means and a tool box consisting only of ad hominem attacks. No., I correct trolls when they are wrong. Sure you do, in your delusions of granduer. I'm glad you agree that I correct trolls when they are wrong. Yep, in your delusions of granduer. ROFLMAO! Sorry about your delusions of competence. One wonders just how long I can keep toying with this idiot and his obsessive need to get in the last word. Me get the last word? You're the one who jumped in with your trolling comments. Let's see you shut up. But I know trolls never can do that. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/30/2014 2:40 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/30/2014 1:44 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/30/2014 12:57 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:36 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I correct trolls when they are wrong. Nope, you are a delusional know it all with an inflated sense of self importance that doesn't know what the word "troll" means and a tool box consisting only of ad hominem attacks. No., I correct trolls when they are wrong. Sure you do, in your delusions of granduer. I'm glad you agree that I correct trolls when they are wrong. Yep, in your delusions of granduer. ROFLMAO! Sorry about your delusions of competence. One wonders just how long I can keep toying with this idiot and his obsessive need to get in the last word. Me get the last word? You're the one who jumped in with your trolling comments. Let's see you shut up. But I know trolls never can do that. You have no clue what the word "troll" means though if you were to look in a mirror you would have a clue. BTW, one does not need to know the math to derive SWR from complex impedance values to be able to understand what SWR is and means. Nor does one need to know the math required to design a Smith chart to be able to plot impedance values on one and read SWR from one. -- Jim Pennino |
Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message ... snip I did invent a unit of measure which seems to have stuck for a time at a former college. During college, I built a device to quantify female desirability. It was an IR detector that basically measured the mount of exposed skin. I needed a unit of measure for female desirability which became the milli-Helen. Since Helen of Troy launched 1000 ships, 1 milli-Helen would launch 1 ship. The negative was also true as negative 1 milli-Helen would sink 1 ship. Unfortunately, it somewhat backfired and failed to provide me with any additional dates and lady friends. That's interesting, since a coworker and I did something like it in the 1990s. (No animal testing was performed.) You rated women's looks based on the Optimum Viewing Distance in feet. At 200 feet, say, you can tell it's a woman but not much more. At 50 feet, you can gauge whether you want a closer look, so lower numbers indicate a more-attractive woman. If she still looks good at 15 feet, but you can see her crooked teeth and nose hair at 10 feet, then the rating is set to 15, the "best" viewing distance for her. If she's really attractive, you probably would want to make physical contact, so she becomes a 0, in effect a completely attractive woman. In this system, the rating number could actually go slightly negative but that would be splitting hairs. "Sal" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com