RadioBanter - Relationship Between Antenna Efficiency and Received Signal Strength

On 1/29/2014 11:00 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2014 11:23 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2014 9:53 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2014 9:09 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I KNOW what a Smith Chart is. But unlike you, I UNDERSTAND the math
behind it.

It's all about the math.

Actually a Smith chart is all about AVOIDING the math which was very
difficult and time consuming to do in the pre-computer days.

It's all based on the math. And if you understand the math, you can use
a Smith Chart much more effectively.

And it wasn't all THAT time consuming - we had to do it with a
slipstick, paper and pencil. No PC's (or even calculators) in those days.

It sure as hell WAS time consuming WITHOUT a Smith chart.

And of course the Smith chart is BASED on math, though you didn't need
to know the underlaying equations to use one.

WITH a Smith chart there was little to no math required, that is the
whole point of a Smith chart.

No, a Smith Chart just gives an approximation for the forumlae involved.

Given care in gathering the data and plotting it, a Smith chart gives
answers more than accurate enough for almost all practical applicatons.

You don't necessarily need the math to USE a Smith Chart. But you do
to UNDERSTAND it.

One does NOT need to understand the underlying math to use a Smith
chart nor any math to get relevant answers from it. That was the
whole point of using a Smith chart.

A huge difference - which you obviously don't understand, either.

You sound like someone who's total exposure to Smith charts is a web
page overview.

You have no idea how a Smith Chart works, that plain. And you don't
understand it.

It seems I understand it far better than you do, but then I actually
have used them as opposed to having just read a web page overview.

You don't need to know how a radio works to use it. But you do have to
understand it to design or fix it.

Finally you understand; you don't need to know the math to use and get
answers from a Smith chart but you do need to know the math to design
a Smith chart.

That was the whole point of a Smith chart; to remove the tedious math.

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.

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. Since you don't understand, no one else can, either.

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.

But then I expect nothing less from the troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================