Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tam, I did not say your value of 1+Sqrt(2) was incorrect.
But when 3 guys you happen to have heard of say so, it hardly constitutes a proof. Why bother to mention them. If you have any doubts about a particular matter the only way to understand what goes on is to work it out for yourself with pencil and paper. Otherwise you will remain dependent on mere acceptance of numbers found in books - if you can find a book. And has been re-discovered in these threads - books disagree with each other. Good books teach you how to work things out for yourself from first principles. Then you can stop referring to authors. But these days so-called engineers are more inclined to misplace their blind faith in computer programs. ;o) Yours, Reg, G4FGQ |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message ...
.... But these days so-called engineers are more inclined to misplace their blind faith in computer programs. ;o) Computer programs...computer programs...now where have I seen them. Oh, yes, it's this chap in Great Britain that offers a bunch of them for free, imperfections and all... ;o) backatcha -- and of course, since this is an amateur group, there are no engineers here. Cheers, Tom who comes equipped with _pen_, paper and computer programs--and sometimes maybe even a brain (smarter than the average bear?). Pencils waste too much time. (Though not so bad as newsgroups in that regard.) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) | Antenna | |||
Re-Normalizing the Smith Chart (Changing the SWR into the same load) | Antenna | |||
Mother Nature's reflection coefficient... | Antenna |