Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"If anyone cares to discuss the subject, or, explain how the conductor
laid on the ground can lose its conductivity, bring it on."

My observations on Tom, W8Ji`s antics are similar to Yuri`s. Too bad
because Tom has much to offer. We all make mistakes, and for everyone`s
benefit we should admit we are wrong when it happens.

The loss from an r-f conductor near the earth is likely more from
displacement (dielectric) loss than conductor conductivity. At Radio
Free Europe we found it more economical to build a kneehigh 2-wire
600-ohm transmission line of Copperweld than to build a stainless steel
dissipation lline high above the ground to dissipate 50 KW. It worked
very well but it was a collision hazard.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"If anyone cares to discuss the subject, or, explain how the conductor
laid on the ground can lose its conductivity, bring it on."

My observations on Tom, W8Ji`s antics are similar to Yuri`s. Too bad
because Tom has much to offer. We all make mistakes, and for everyone`s
benefit we should admit we are wrong when it happens.

What did he say that was wrong ?
What book this time are you quoting from?
What book states that you are correct in your own analysis?
We all know that you have some sort of connection with Radio Free Europe so
how did your antics prove
that Tom is in error? Yes Tom and others including myself can be
fraustrating but is that justification for dragging him thru the mud? Your
post sounds like a "swift boat"
advertisement so maybe some of it will stick
Art





The loss from an r-f conductor near the earth is likely more from
displacement (dielectric) loss than conductor conductivity. At Radio
Free Europe we found it more economical to build a kneehigh 2-wire
600-ohm transmission line of Copperweld than to build a stainless steel
dissipation lline high above the ground to dissipate 50 KW. It worked
very well but it was a collision hazard.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:43:07 GMT, "
wrote:
so maybe some of it will stick
more trolling

If I was going to join the trashing then at the least I would go to EHAM and
tell him why he is wrong. It just doesn't belong here on this group, it
belongs on the group where he made the statement.
I suspect that you soon will add snide remarks for which
you have s remarkable ability that has stood the test of time.on R.R.A.A.
Art

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:43:07 GMT, "
wrote:
so maybe some of it will stick
more trolling

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:53:02 GMT, "
wrote:
I suspect that you
more trolling

Art Unwin wrote:
"What did he say that was wrong?"

Recently Tom argued with Yuri that loading coils must have the same
current in and out. Circuit theory does not directly apply in all cases
due to the possibility of a reflected wave on the coil and due to
radiation from a loading coil.

Did Tom ever admit that it`s possible that current into one end of the
coil does not necessarily equal the current at its other end?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Do you have a quote showing exactly what Tom said, in context?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Harrison wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
"What did he say that was wrong?"

Recently Tom argued with Yuri that loading coils must have the same
current in and out. Circuit theory does not directly apply in all cases
due to the possibility of a reflected wave on the coil and due to
radiation from a loading coil.

Did Tom ever admit that it`s possible that current into one end of the
coil does not necessarily equal the current at its other end?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I have a great deal of respect for Tom, W8JI. In fact, there are few
people I respect as much. I regard him as being exceptionally honest,
very analytical, and always seeking to find the truth and increase his
knowledge. Whenever his view of how things work have been shown to be
wrong, I've found him to readily accept the corrected view, and be
grateful of the opportunity to learn something new. I've also learned
from him on more than one occasion. One notable case is the idea of
using a balun at the input of a tuner to improve the balun's balancing
properties. I had believed it to work, but he showed me where I was
wrong, giving me the opportunity to increase my knowledge.

I find it contemptable and cowardly to attack him -- or anyone -- in a
forum where he's not a participant and isn't present to correct
misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and otherwise respond and defend
himself. People doing so should instead sign onto one of the election
campaigns or go on AM talk radio, where such gutless, dishonest, and
mean-spirited activity is the accepted norm.

I believe the Russians have a word for this kind of cowardly and
"uncultured" activity -- something like "nyekulturny". Maybe Yuri knows.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
One notable case is the idea of
using a balun at the input of a tuner to improve the balun's balancing
properties. I had believed it to work, but he showed me where I was
wrong, giving me the opportunity to increase my knowledge.

Over on eHam.net, he just admitted that a real world application
does not act like that perfect paper solution. He said:

"In real life, stray capacitances from the network to ground modify
the behavior of the system when the balun is moved ..."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/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! =-----

W7EL wrote:

I have a great deal of respect for Tom, W8JI. In fact, there are few
people I respect as much. I regard him as being exceptionally honest,
very analytical, and always seeking to find the truth and increase his
knowledge. Whenever his view of how things work have been shown to be
wrong, I've found him to readily accept the corrected view, and be
grateful of the opportunity to learn something new. I've also learned
from him on more than one occasion.

That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion. I am sure Tom has also respect
for you (as I do) and he would think twice of pontificating at you than at
someone who is not so vocal or "famous" due to their status or postings on
Internet.
My experience is, as I mentioned it before ( I don't take crap for anybody)
that when I brought some correction to his fallacy or presented idea that did
not exactly jive with his "knowledge", he would in first posting come on the
high horse and pontificate and ridicule the person, rather than engage in the
discussion of pro or con and try to sort things out. That's what ****es me off,
when someone who is wrong resorts to personal attacks (like democrats) rather
than engaging in substantive discussion.
He thrives on reflectors where he is protected by the administrators that
worship him and will not allow discussions when he is on the losing side. He is
not on Amp reflector, mainly because R. Measures debunked some of his postings
proclaiming fallacies. Same was on TowerTalk with K7GCO, who called him "great
technical imposter". Been there, was done to me.
Again his modus operandi is, when he is wrong, he attacks person rather than
engages in discussion and admitting wrong. Then goes quiet for few months and
later corrected, emerges as a "guru" on the subject, like it is his own idea.
Never admitting or giving credit where is due.
I had about 6 situations like that with him, records are at the web sites,
anyone can look it up. I don't give a hoot about "reputation" among the hams, I
have a life outside of ham "world". It just burns me when I try with good
intentions to bring correction to some crap that is floating around, and for it
I get personally attacked and ridiculed.
I don't give a hoot who people want to worship, I have my God. I try to point
out some errors or problems, be it wrong information or crapy equipment.
If you want to find out who is gutless, dishonest and nyekulturny, go back to
some archives, I can supply you subjects and see for yourself.
I learned thing or two from Tom too, but I also see lot of textbook stuff on
his pages and even there are some misleading information. But I will not take
crap for saying that 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong.


I find it contemptable and cowardly to attack him -- or anyone -- in a
forum where he's not a participant and isn't present to correct
misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and otherwise respond and defend
himself.


The last thing is sentence about wire "losing" conductivity by laying on the
ground. That's what I brought up. I know what was the situation with dual wire
Beverages, but that sentence was wrong way to describe what is happening in the
system. If he is so smart, he should be more careful when describing technical
matters. Words mean things.

BTW Tom used EZnec to "prove" that current across the loading coil in the
loaded antenna is the same at both ends. When you replace that coil with same
inductance value loading stub, you find that current is (significantly)
different at the ends of the stub.
Have you corrected him how to use EZnec properly to model lumped inductance and
get results that jive with reality? Cecil showed and explained the stuff. In
his presentation at Dayton, Tom still propagated that nonsense.

Anyway, back to DR1, getting tired of arguing with "experts".

73 Yuri, K3BU