"see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm"
wrote in message ...
In uk.radio.amateur Brian Reay
wrote:
Don't worry about it Bob, "zzzpk" has a problem with people who prove
him
wrong. Welcome to the club ;-)

But he's not wrong at all. It is indeed a ratio - C is proportional to
1/d
so why the argument?

Because the would be stated as:

C is INVERSELY proportional to d

An other example, from the RF field, is the 'inverse square law'. If your
interpretation were correct it would be the "square law".

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

In uk.radio.amateur Brian Reay wrote:

Because the would be stated as:

C is INVERSELY proportional to d

An other example, from the RF field, is the 'inverse square law'. If your
interpretation were correct it would be the "square law".

Not at all. As you (correctly) say, the name in the 'inverse square law'.
It too is a proportional ratio - in that case P in proportional to 1/(d^2).

N'est pas?

--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealth Technologies, MN013-N300, UNIX Solutions Group
6150 Trenton Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55440 1-763-744-1723
email: "Remove the spam filtre"
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

"see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm"
wrote in message ...
In uk.radio.amateur Brian Reay
wrote:

Because the would be stated as:

C is INVERSELY proportional to d

An other example, from the RF field, is the 'inverse square law'. If
your
interpretation were correct it would be the "square law".

Not at all. As you (correctly) say, the name in the 'inverse square law'.
It too is a proportional ratio - in that case P in proportional to
1/(d^2).


Ok, you do it your way. I'll stick to the convention I've learned and, other
that you and zzpk, I've always found others use.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

"Brian Reay" wrote:

:
: Ok, you do it your way. I'll stick to the convention I've learned and, other
: that you and zzpk, I've always found others use.


oh so now its ok for Chris... therefore its ok for me.

so your previous posts and your comments to our american cousin have
been a waste of time

par for the course - me thinks

In uk.radio.amateur ZZZPK .es.it.net wrote:
oh so now its ok for Chris... therefore its ok for me.

so your previous posts and your comments to our american cousin have
been a waste of time

Oi - who you callin' a Merkun?
--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealth Technologies, MN013-N300, UNIX Solutions Group
6150 Trenton Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55440 1-763-744-1723
email: "Remove the spam filtre"
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

"see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm"
wrote:

: In uk.radio.amateur ZZZPK .es.it.net wrote:
: oh so now its ok for Chris... therefore its ok for me.
:
: so your previous posts and your comments to our american cousin have
: been a waste of time
:
: Oi - who you callin' a Merkun?

oh some person who has a problem understanding set theory.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:44:31 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:
oh some person who has a problem understanding set theory.
Is that a chemistry set, or an erector set? Or set to your partner?