|
More W8JI "wisdom"
On TopBand reflector the "guru" proclaimed:
"The only thing that prevents people from shooting themselves in the foot with the wire below the Beverage is the wire couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very lossy, and of course that means it doesn't help with stability or termination." So if you want wire to be lossy, jus' lay it on the ground! :-) .... and the "worshipers" nodded in amazement Believing W8JI claims can be hazardous to your radios. :-) Yuri da BUm |
On 21 Aug 2004 15:16:49 GMT, self-important Yuri Blanarovich
failed a maturity test: On TopBand reflector the "guru" proclaimed: *plonk* |
If you take issue with something Tom wrote, why not
just deal with him direct? 73, Tom Donaly KA6RUH "Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message ... On TopBand reflector the "guru" proclaimed: "The only thing that prevents people from shooting themselves in the foot with the wire below the Beverage is the wire couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very lossy, and of course that means it doesn't help with stability or termination." So if you want wire to be lossy, jus' lay it on the ground! :-) ... and the "worshipers" nodded in amazement Believing W8JI claims can be hazardous to your radios. :-) Yuri da BUm |
"dtdonaly" wrote in message ... If you take issue with something Tom wrote, why not just deal with him direct? 73, Tom Donaly KA6RUH Or, open it for discussion in that forum? Pete |
" Uncle Peter" wrote in message news:fmMVc.12477$yh.1034@fed1read05... "dtdonaly" wrote in message ... If you take issue with something Tom wrote, why not just deal with him direct? 73, Tom Donaly KA6RUH Tom must be doing something right - he's the only US station I've ever worked on 160m (with 5 watts QRP & a very modest end-fed wire by the way). 73, Peter VK3YE http://www.qsl.net/vk3ye |
Agree - I've seen his station, as well
Murray vk4aok Peter Parker wrote: " Uncle Peter" wrote in message news:fmMVc.12477$yh.1034@fed1read05... "dtdonaly" wrote in message om... If you take issue with something Tom wrote, why not just deal with him direct? 73, Tom Donaly KA6RUH Tom must be doing something right - he's the only US station I've ever worked on 160m (with 5 watts QRP & a very modest end-fed wire by the way). 73, Peter VK3YE http://www.qsl.net/vk3ye |
If you take issue with something Tom wrote, why not
just deal with him direct? 73, Tom Donaly KA6RUH I had my share of dealing with Tom direct and pointing out wrong information that he was spreading on the waves of Internet. For that I was attacked by him and called "pathological scientist" rather than engaging in reasoning and discussions. When I tried to defend the truth and reality on the reflectors, I would be unsubscribed by Herr Administrator and Tom was given last word, "proving" he is "right". To those reflectors I never came back and one of them is TopBand. This is #7 gross misstatement from Tom that I am pointing out. I mentioned it here for the benefit of those who care. If anyone wants to worship W8JI and his "pontifical" statements that are sometimes wrong, be my guest. Tom must be doing something right - he's the only US station I've ever worked on 160m (with 5 watts QRP & a very modest end-fed wire by the way). 73, Peter VK3YE http://www.qsl.net/vk3ye ...and that proves that everything Tom says is right? People can be wrong, and usually appreciate if they are corrected or shown better way. W8JI seems to be "absolutely right" even when he is wrong. He would first ridicule the one who tries to correct his misconceptions. Then if argument ensues and he realizes and is convinced that he was wrong, he would not admit it, but goes quiet for a while and later emerges as a "guru" on the subject pretending it was all his invention. He is doing some things right, but he has this attitude that does not reflect well on hams and it is not manly to attack someone for bringing up correction, and then making it his own "invention", not giving credit where is due. That is called plagiarism. So, I brought this up for those who care about reality, and I am taking advantage for ability to post here, where reflector Gestapo will not silence me. Tom is hanging around reflectors where he is protected by administrators, when he encounters knowledgeable opposition to some of his fallacies, he can't take the heat, will not admit being wrong and goes and thrives behind reflector Gestapo. I am not looking for fights, I am trying to point out when I see something posted publicly wrong. If anyone cares to discuss the subject, or explain how the conductor laid on the ground can lose its conductivity, bring it on. I can't figure out how this could happen and I would enjoy being enlightened. 73 Yuri, K3BU.us |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
People can be wrong, and usually appreciate if they are corrected or shown better way. Are you the same Yuri Blanarovich that cheated a lot of people, including me, out of issues of "RadioSporting" Magazine a number of years ago? Seem's you need to be shown the better way. Henry WA0GOZ |
Are you the same Yuri Blanarovich that cheated a lot of people, including me, out of issues of "RadioSporting" Magazine a number of years ago? Seem's you need to be shown the better way. Henry WA0GOZ Henry, I would be very careful who are you calling cheater! According to my records, WA0GOZ, you were sent few free issues in the beginning, never subscribed, never paid the dime. Can you send me label from your last issue and how much do I owe you? Now I can refund anyone requesting so. Interesting that most noise about Radiosporting is made by people who didn't subscribe but are somehow "cheated". For your information, I "invested" over $70,000 of my money and sleepless nights into publishing magazine that would serve DXers and contesters. When due to financial, family and health reasons I could not do so anymore, no one came forward offering help, NCJ went in competition to "bury" me rather than cooperate, I am glad to be still around and not joining likes of late W4AN. Just read the crap on eHam.net when W4AN was in bind, requested some help and bunch of whiny cheap hamsters drove him off, rather then contributing and helping someone who was so dedicated to our beloved hobby. There are quite a few sickos around and they project themselves with their postings. 73 Yuri |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Are you the same Yuri Blanarovich that cheated a lot of people, including me, out of issues of "RadioSporting" Magazine a number of years ago? Seem's you need to be shown the better way. Henry WA0GOZ Henry, I would be very careful who are you calling cheater! According to my records, WA0GOZ, you were sent few free issues in the beginning, never subscribed, never paid the dime. That's not true. I paid for everything, but didn't get all I paid for. Can you send me label from your last issue and how much do I owe you? No I can't. I junked the copies I had. Interesting that most noise about Radiosporting is made by people who didn't subscribe but are somehow "cheated". I wasn't one of them if you want people on this NG to believe that. I did subscribe. Henry WA0GOZ |
Yuri, I agree in general with your, not out of place, semi-technical
sentiments. But regarding lossy wires, laid on the ground, as for a Beverage which is often supposed to depend on ground loss, we must be very careful of making a virtue out of a vice. I venture to say the higher an LF Beverage was above the ground the more efficient, both on receive and transmit, it would have become. The reason a wire as long the Beverage was so near to the ground was because of the high cost of a lot of very tall poles. The rest is old-wives' tales. Or have I inadvertently changed the subject? --- Reg. |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
People can be wrong, and usually appreciate if they are corrected or shown better way. To be fair, W8JI usually slowly moves himself off his always/never rail position to a more reasonable often/hardly-ever position. Some time ago, he and others on this newsgroup asserted that absolutely nothing changes when one moves the balun from the tuner output to the tuner input. The subject came up recently on eHam.net. W8JI wrote: If you draw a floating network on paper and look at what happens, you'll see moving the balun results in the same stress on the core regardless of the side of the tuner the balun is on. i.e. a paper solution indicates that nothing changes, but ... In real life, stray capacitances from the network to ground modify the behavior of the system when the balun is moved, but the change is generally both small and unpreditable. i.e. changes can and do actually happen in the real world. As in any distributed network configuration with reflections, if the balun changes the phase between the forward common-mode current and the reflected common-mode current, that can shift the location of the common-mode current nodes. -- 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! =----- |
Dear Group:
I have read several times the quotation that has prompted discussion. (see below) The statement uses "it" too many times for me to know what is being contended. The statement mentions shooting, stability, termination, and at least one wire as a Beverage (wave) antenna. As we all know, Beverage's wave antenna is used on receiving for its directivity and rarely is used as a transmitting antenna. My request is to see a clear statement in Standard English (BCC English is ok) of what W8JI is contending. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA Home: "The only thing that prevents people from shooting themselves in the foot with the wire below the Beverage is the wire couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very lossy, and of course that means it doesn't help with stability or termination." |
Can you send me label from your last issue and how much do I owe you? No I can't. I junked the copies I had. Interesting that most noise about Radiosporting is made by people who didn't subscribe but are somehow "cheated". I wasn't one of them if you want people on this NG to believe that. I did subscribe. Henry WA0GOZ I have the printouts of all issues that were sent out. According to my records you received last free issue of Radiosporting 8601 - Jan. 1986. The only subscribers with WA0 calls were WA0JRP, WA0NPK and later WA0WOF. You and WA0EUP received only freebies and I have no record of subscriptions. Somebody is making things up or dreaming and making false accusations. Just wonder what the Radiosporting has to do with my posting? 73 Yuri |
Reg,
the subject of discussion on TopBand reflector was conductivity of earth under the beverage or effect of wire placed on the ground and its effect on the preformance of the Beverage antenna (above). Here is the repeat of W8JI portion of the posting on this subject: The only thing that prevents people from shooting themselves in the foot with the wire below the Beverage is the wire couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very lossy, and of course that means it doesn't help with stability or termination. - "" wire below the Beverage"" there is aconsiderable discussion on this subject there. My problem is with the statement " the wire couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very lossy" As far as I know, to make wire lossy, one must increase resistance by some means. In my book, wire maintains its conductivity regardless what it is laying on, and that overrides the effect of lossy ground underneath. Speaking of Beverages and their poor performance over good ground or salt water, most people find it is true, some claim still good performance on LF and MF. While operating from VE1ZZ place and using his beverages, he has one that is running over the rocky ground, slightly down hill, 90 deg towards the salt water and it is terminated via resistor into the stainless steel hubcap in the salt water. That sucker beats anything else we tried, pair of staggered beverages or phased ones. So it appears that Beverage stretched over poor ground but terminated in the good ground beats their "better" cousins. We are talking about 160 - 40m and definitely not using it for transmit. This is reality in by old wives. Regards, Yuri, K3BU.us Yuri, I agree in general with your, not out of place, semi-technical sentiments. But regarding lossy wires, laid on the ground, as for a Beverage which is often supposed to depend on ground loss, we must be very careful of making a virtue out of a vice. I venture to say the higher an LF Beverage was above the ground the more efficient, both on receive and transmit, it would have become. The reason a wire as long the Beverage was so near to the ground was because of the high cost of a lot of very tall poles. The rest is old-wives' tales. Or have I inadvertently changed the subject? --- Reg. |
I just looked through a bunch of old mags and found one from you. I is
the April/May 1989 issue. Funny how I didn't subscribe, but I have a copy with a mailing label with a date later than your "records". mmmmmm. Henry WA0GOZ Yuri Blanarovich wrote: Can you send me label from your last issue and how much do I owe you? No I can't. I junked the copies I had. Interesting that most noise about Radiosporting is made by people who didn't subscribe but are somehow "cheated". I wasn't one of them if you want people on this NG to believe that. I did subscribe. Henry WA0GOZ I have the printouts of all issues that were sent out. According to my records you received last free issue of Radiosporting 8601 - Jan. 1986. The only subscribers with WA0 calls were WA0JRP, WA0NPK and later WA0WOF. You and WA0EUP received only freebies and I have no record of subscriptions. Somebody is making things up or dreaming and making false accusations. Just wonder what the Radiosporting has to do with my posting? 73 Yuri |
My request is to see a clear statement in Standard English (BCC
English is ok) of what W8JI is contending. 73 Mac N8TT Judge by yourself, here is the complete posting, rest of the discussion is on http://lists.contesting.com/archives...-08/index.html Yuri I'd say that given "average" elevation angles for DX, you should treat both arrival elevation angle and tilt from ground loss as being roughly equal factors. None of that matters anyway Chuck when the pattern of the antenna isn't any good. We know a lot more about antenna patterns and how antennas respond over earth than we did back in the earlier part of the 20th century. The fact is we want the horizontal area of the antenna to have as much response as possible. If we put a wire below the antenna that *really* changed things we know by where it is located it could only make things worse. A Beverage responds in the horizontal area only because of the high loss in the media below the antenna. Without a highly conductive media below the antenna, it's a cloverleaf with a null off the ends caused by the vertical ends dominating the response. It's all in the antenna pattern. We can have all the tilted wave we like but if the antenna has a zero response slice looking at it and major lobes 20dB stronger 45 degrees to either and off both ends, we won't be very happy with the results. The only thing that prevents people from shooting themselves in the foot with the wire below the Beverage is the wire couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very lossy, and of course that means it doesn't help with stability or termination. If you think it does, lay a very long wire on the ground and measure the input impedance. See how it looks compared to a ~50 ohm ground rod connection....I guarantee it won't look pretty. 73 Tom |
This is reality in by old wives.
Huh? :-) Maybe I was trying to say "This is reality even by old wives?" I must be watching US beach volleyball chicks in their bikinis too much. They won anyway and go to finals for gold. GO US! Yuri, K3BUm |
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:51:47 -0400, "J. McLaughlin"
wrote: I have read several times the quotation that has prompted discussion. (see below) The statement uses "it" too many times for me to know what is being contended. .... My request is to see a clear statement in Standard English (BCC English is ok) of what W8JI is contending. Hi Mac, The danger of this is these "arguments" (offered on the behalf of a otherwise silent party) is that they have every chance of being under reported, and over extended. It quickly devolves to "so-and-so thinks...." to triumphantly prove it-just-ain't-so. It reminds me of past statements offered as V9SRB's logic in his behalf that never were suggested by him nor even intimated. As a one-time shot against a full statement, I suppose that is enough to critique, but I have seen this hothouse orchid bloom into fully fleshed philosophies projected onto the silent protagonist by unrelated statements forced into continuity by the critic presuming a sub-context. If Yuri, you have some beef against Tom, I can fully concur in his personality taking you there. Has he offered howlers? You bet! Is he guilty of other rhetorical shenanigans - don't we know. Is he demonstrably skilled? Well, yes, that too. [warning to readers, metaphors employed to a sly comic interlude] Suffice it to say no Radio Moscow program ever interviewed a Radio Free Europe commentator to serious issues - why would you expect such a re-alignment of the heavens for your sake? Ask George W for help; you might find he would take on the evil Dr. Joyce Brothers to solve our moral problems with Howard Stern. ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
I just looked through a bunch of old mags and found one from you. I is the April/May 1989 issue. Funny how I didn't subscribe, but I have a copy with a mailing label with a date later than your "records". mmmmmm. Henry WA0GOZ Can you describe what is on the label, with codes if any please? Thanks, Yuri |
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 22:15:56 -0400, "J. McLaughlin"
wrote: I shall file in my list of interesting-things-to-think-about-in-a-serious-way the issue of what happens to the behavior a wave antenna having a "wire" on the ground directly under the antenna wire. I do recall dealing with a similar issue where I was verifying a modeling issue by testing the Zo of a very long wire over a conducting plane. Hi Mac, Where the discussion remains technical, it seems to me that both Tom and Yuri are saying the same thing. On the other hand, they may say it differently, but the conclusions seem to agree. Your experience and studies to this point would be instructive. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
KB7QHC:
Where the discussion remains technical, it seems to me that both Tom and Yuri are saying the same thing. On the other hand, they may say it differently, but the conclusions seem to agree. Huh? Which "same thing?" Yuri |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
I just looked through a bunch of old mags and found one from you. I is the April/May 1989 issue. Funny how I didn't subscribe, but I have a copy with a mailing label with a date later than your "records". mmmmmm. Henry WA0GOZ Can you describe what is on the label, with codes if any please? Thanks, Yuri Sure WA0GOZ S 9005 Henry Knoll 10081 103rd St. No. Stillwater MN 55082 |
|
wrote in message ... Yuri Blanarovich wrote: I just looked through a bunch of old mags and found one from you. I is the April/May 1989 issue. Funny how I didn't subscribe, but I have a copy with a mailing label with a date later than your "records". mmmmmm. Henry WA0GOZ Can you describe what is on the label, with codes if any please? Thanks, Yuri Sure WA0GOZ S 9005 Henry Knoll 10081 103rd St. No. Stillwater MN 55082 Wow, that's looks like hard proof to me. Now Yuri can refund a couple of dollars to Henry, gain spiritual peace over resolving that debt from 1989, and the world will be a better place for all. Maybe I could get all those deceased computer mags from the 1980's to refund their defaulted subscription balances to me, and I could go have a magnificent banquet dinner for two at McDonalds. Ed wb6wsn |
KB7QHC: Where the discussion remains technical, it seems to me that both Tom and Yuri are saying the same thing. On the other hand, they may say it differently, but the conclusions seem to agree. Huh? Which "same thing?" Yuri Which difference? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC What are you refering to? Can you be more specific? Wire laying on the ground "changing" resistance or terminating Beverage in the ocean? Yuri |
|
Can you describe what is on the label, with codes if any please?
Thanks, Yuri Sure WA0GOZ S You are right, I found it on the computer.Printed listings missed it, because I received your check on 89/06/06 after the regular 8905 issue was mailed, your payment arrived later, I sent you 8905 issue and it didn't show up on the printout. Searching computer I found it. I have mailed check with refund today. I am sorry for mixup, comments and above all, that I was not able to continue publishing and sinking money into Radiosporting. I am still hoping to scan old issues and perhaps continue with it on Internet (no money outlay for printing), but only as time permitting. I am glad we could sort thing out. 73 Yuri |
Hi Yuri, As Mac said, there are many "its" in the quote. However the vague combinations do not resolve to different interpretations as you persist. The extra wire leads to the same conclusion you BOTH describe and that is Beverage-like antenna characteristics. As that is a unique consequence of ground's retarding the wavefront, it necessarily follows that Tom maintains (and directly states) that the extra wire does NOT interfere with that action. He states why - tight coupling. He no where states that metallic copper assumes ohmic loss as the loss is a consequence of proximity to earth. Further, I've seen no statement from you or Tom that maintains the extra wire destroys the Beverage-like antenna characteristic, hence there is not a hair's width difference between you two. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC First of all, I have not done experiments to compare single wire Beverages vs. dual wire, with the other wire being laid underneath the Beverage. I had the problem with statement "the wire below the Beverage is the wire couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very lossy" as far as I know wire maintains it's conductivity regardless where it is laid. Perhaps more accurate statement would be that wire laying on the ground becomes less significant in its contribution to the performance of the above Beverage. But because the "ground" wire is connected typically at the termination point and at the feedpoint to the Beverage system, I am not sure that it can be "ignored". Some claim this forms the "open wire" parallel system and has significant effect on the Beverage performance. There is dispute as far signal arrival angles are concerned, some signals get subjected to wave tilt due to poor ground, some signals have their own tilt due to propagation and terrain effects. To find out the reality, the exact systems should be compared in various situations. Modeling might not provide fool proof answers due to some programs having hard time to model reality, that can be confused by varying ground characteristics along the Beverage. Yuri, K3BU |
"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message ... Hi Yuri, snipirst of all, I have not done experiments to compare single wire Beverages vs. dual wire, with the other wire being laid underneath the Beverage. I had the problem with statement "the wire below the Beverage is the wire couples to the lossy media below it so well it becomes very lossy" as far as I know wire maintains it's conductivity regardless where it is laid. Yuri Wire conductivity may not be pertinent in this case as "coupling" can reduce the applied current I would be extremely surprised if Tom inferred that wire conductivity changed. Regards Art Perhaps more accurate statement would be that wire laying on the ground becomes less significant in its contribution to the performance of the above Beverage. But because the "ground" wire is connected typically at the termination point and at the feedpoint to the Beverage system, I am not sure that it can be "ignored". Some claim this forms the "open wire" parallel system and has significant effect on the Beverage performance. There is dispute as far signal arrival angles are concerned, some signals get subjected to wave tilt due to poor ground, some signals have their own tilt due to propagation and terrain effects. To find out the reality, the exact systems should be compared in various situations. Modeling might not provide fool proof answers due to some programs having hard time to model reality, that can be confused by varying ground characteristics along the Beverage. Yuri, K3BU |
|
Yuri, the problem with you arguing Tom's position is that nothing is
said of this glaring difference. It is quite remarkable (or I made some remarkable mistake or the wire is just too short as I mentioned) and it DOES denote a dramatic departure from accepted Beverage characteristics which has been undisclosed as a comment from Tom, if in fact he offered it. This 8dB loss does make sense in that you have a leaky transmission line in a death embrace with ground. The wires would split the power and the lower power contribution would certainly attempt to warm the worms with more gusto. [ IF perhaps we were to employ the old twinlead twist every foot or so, we might find things evened out ;-) ] I will let that simmer for this evening. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Here is the perhaps the best outline of the "problem" by VE7DXR and you might want to try to plug it into program to see the correlation. Yuri Observations done here 8 and 15 years ago using a 600m Beverage on the MW broadcast band seem to verify the above statement. Even though the DC resistance of the wire is naturally very low, it was found that the "counterpoise" lying on the ground underneath the antenna, and connecting the ground rod at the far end of the Beverage with the ground rod at the receiver end's matching transformer, in fact, was acting like a "Beverage on Ground", rather than a short circuit between ground rods. That is, it delivered a signal to the grounded side of the matching transformer. The result was that signal strengths often were stronger from transmitters broadside to the antenna (10 dB or so), the occasional solid nulls on signals from the back of the antenna were degraded, and little increase in signal strength from signals from the far end of the antenna were observed. Those of us who performed this experiment stopped using "counterpoises" from that point forward, unless we used them as antennas in their own right. best wishes, Nick, VE7DXR |
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com