On 19 Oct 2004 02:56:32 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

He wrote that about four times, what's the point of it? Smart Alec attitude?

Hi Yuri,

And yet you are on Tom for just such a similar distinction of word
choice. Does this illustrate the principles of reciprocity? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Yuri,

And yet you are on Tom for just such a similar distinction of word
choice. Does this illustrate the principles of reciprocity? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Slight difference. Rauchians choose their words as weapons of smart ass
attitude at "morons" who happen to be right, while Rs are wrong. They fail at
the discussion of facts and arguments. I resort to (not too proud of it)
responding and biting back in order to prove the point. There is reciprocity
but not ideal, just like RF current behavior in real coil.
And he did it for the fifth time, go figure. Fuggetaboutit!

Yuri, K3BU

On 19 Oct 2004 16:47:46 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

Hi Yuri,

Slight difference. Rauchians choose their words as weapons of smart ass
attitude at "morons" who happen to be right, while Rs are wrong.
This is the trivial difference.
They fail at the discussion of facts and arguments.
This is the Rauchian difference.

I will agree in this respect, but not all Toms are Rauchs. The term
"Current Drop" is abhorrent to some (a pollution of technical
language), an irritant to others, and inconsequential to many who
simply enjoy the cat fight.

I can take only so much of the technical pollution. The breaking
point for me is when foreign terms are elevated to prayer status and
made icons of a new theory. This, for you, I presume constitutes much
the same issue as
They fail at the discussion of facts and arguments.
which you are closely mimicking in the tedious and insistent manner of
upholding a foreign usage. You agreed that Tom (Rauch) could have as
easily chosen better language, the same resolution is afforded in this
current contretemps too.

A simpler resolution is to simply drop it and move on.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
I will agree in this respect, but not all Toms are Rauchs. The term
"Current Drop" is abhorrent to some (a pollution of technical
language), an irritant to others, and inconsequential to many who
simply enjoy the cat fight.

Heh, heh, so you don't believe there is a current drop between the
current maximum point and current minimum point on a transmission
line with reflections? Seems to me going from 2 amps at a current
maximum to 0.1 amps at a current minimum is a measurable drop in
total current.

Would you please provide a proof that going from 2 amps to 0.1 amps
is NOT a drop in total current?

Just one more example of trying to use lumped circuit analysis methods
on distributed network problems. Are you guys ever going to learn?

Hint: With distributed networks involving an appreciable percentage of
a wavelength, there are definitely current drops in the series loop.
This certainly applies to 75m Bugcatcher coils used on standing-wave
mobile antennas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

I will agree in this respect, but not all Toms are Rauchs. The term
"Current Drop" is abhorrent to some (a pollution of technical
language), an irritant to others, and inconsequential to many who
simply enjoy the cat fight.


Heh, heh, so you don't believe there is a current drop between the
current maximum point and current minimum point on a transmission
line with reflections? Seems to me going from 2 amps at a current
maximum to 0.1 amps at a current minimum is a measurable drop in
total current.

Would you please provide a proof that going from 2 amps to 0.1 amps
is NOT a drop in total current?

Just one more example of trying to use lumped circuit analysis methods
on distributed network problems. Are you guys ever going to learn?

Hint: With distributed networks involving an appreciable percentage of
a wavelength, there are definitely current drops in the series loop.
This certainly applies to 75m Bugcatcher coils used on standing-wave
mobile antennas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Next, Cecil, you're going to be talking about a "current gradient"
and a "scalar current field." Here's a question for you, Cecil, and
Richard Harrison, and Yuri, too: how do you take the gradient of
the current at a point on a transmission line, and, if were possible
to do so, what is the physical significance of the result?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH wrote:
": how do you take the gradient of the current at a point on a
transmission line?"

Not sure I understand the question. Gradient is the rate of change and
that`s the derivative of the current at a given point. Over a certain
path it is the difference between the path ends and can be averaged for
the path.

For convenience, Kraus has collected transmission line formulas. I`m not
a typist so I`ll just say they are near the end of the new edition, page
890. In the 1950 edition they can be fornd on pages 506 and 507, also
near the end of the book.

Work out your own example.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH wrote:
": how do you take the gradient of the current at a point on a
transmission line?"

Not sure I understand the question. Gradient is the rate of change and
that`s the derivative of the current at a given point. Over a certain
path it is the difference between the path ends and can be averaged for
the path.

For convenience, Kraus has collected transmission line formulas. I`m not
a typist so I`ll just say they are near the end of the new edition, page
890. In the 1950 edition they can be fornd on pages 506 and 507, also
near the end of the book.

Work out your own example.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Thank you, Richard, you just made my point.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Heh, heh, so you don't believe there is a current drop between the
current maximum point and current minimum point on a transmission
line with reflections? Seems to me going from 2 amps at a current
maximum to 0.1 amps at a current minimum is a measurable drop in
total current.

Next, Cecil, you're going to be talking about a "current gradient"
and a "scalar current field." Here's a question for you, Cecil, and
Richard Harrison, and Yuri, too: how do you take the gradient of
the current at a point on a transmission line, and, if were possible
to do so, what is the physical significance of the result?

A total current gradient obviously exists on a transmission line
with current minimums and maximums. You can locate those points
with a simple pickup loop. The current gradient is caused
by the superposition of forward and reflected current waves as
described in any transmission line textbook.

"Taking the gradient" seems to me to be unnecessary and just a
logical diversion away from the qualitative conceptual discussion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Heh, heh, so you don't believe there is a current drop between the
current maximum point and current minimum point on a transmission
line with reflections? Seems to me going from 2 amps at a current
maximum to 0.1 amps at a current minimum is a measurable drop in
total current.


Next, Cecil, you're going to be talking about a "current gradient"
and a "scalar current field." Here's a question for you, Cecil, and
Richard Harrison, and Yuri, too: how do you take the gradient of
the current at a point on a transmission line, and, if were possible
to do so, what is the physical significance of the result?


A total current gradient obviously exists on a transmission line
with current minimums and maximums. You can locate those points
with a simple pickup loop. The current gradient is caused
by the superposition of forward and reflected current waves as
described in any transmission line textbook.

"Taking the gradient" seems to me to be unnecessary and just a
logical diversion away from the qualitative conceptual discussion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

You and Richard need a refresher course in electromagnetics. I hope
Yuri doesn't fall into the same trap.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
Next, Cecil, you're going to be talking about a "current gradient"
and a "scalar current field." Here's a question for you, Cecil, and
Richard Harrison, and Yuri, too: how do you take the gradient of
the current at a point on a transmission line, and, if were possible
to do so, what is the physical significance of the result?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

The standing wave current profile along, for example, a quarter wave
radiator is a cosine function. The gradient then would be the
derivative of the cosine function which is a -sine function.

73, ac6xg