On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:35:50 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
I take it by your lack of other response you couldn't summon up a
simple measure of temperature, ...

If you, as a father, ever felt the brow of your child, you can tell
his/her body temperature within a couple of degrees.

Hi Cecil,

A couple of degrees? Another way of saying you don't know.

Step outside, and touch the side of the house illuminated by the sun
and tell me within a couple of degrees what its temperature is. You
don't have a clue.

All of this means that you are long on wind when it comes to claims,
and short on real facts when it comes to application. Just like your
gusting on about light (like the sun) and wholly lost in the woods
when asked how much power (like the temperature asked here). You
couldn't even guess without fear of embarrassment.

Want to jack up the pressure? How many Watts in that same area where
your hand feels the heat against the sun drenched wall? You claim you
can do it with your hand and a 75m hamstick coil (just a claim - and
pretty inspecific at that), but have failed repeatedly to divulge the
exact same ability with the sun against your own house.

To this point the best you have to offer in the Texan sun is that it
is out:
0 - maybe not
1 - maybe so

If this is the best of your generalization (a binary shrug of the
shoulders), you certainly could achieve a leap of success in dropping
your poor standard equipment.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I have done my lab work and produced results consistent with
classic rho.


But Classic rho didn't tell us the incident voltage. Also, the crux of
your argument was that rho= -1 should be a short, which it is not for complex
Zo.





The benefit of going to the lab is all yours. You will
learn how it works. Alternatively, perhaps, you will demonstrate
that classic rho is all wrong and revised rho rules. In this
case, if YOU have done the lab work, YOU will get (and deserve)
all the glory of a major revision to transmission line theory.


This is not a revision. This is already in the published material.

And i have plenty of lab experience, thank you very much.




If I went back to the lab you are unlikely to accept any new
results from me any more than you have accepted those to date.
Sometimes seeing is believing.



Right. And you probably won't accept any new data from me.



This may be true, but are you saying that a capacitor can reflect an
RMS voltage wave that is greater than the one that charges it?

Yes indeed. Resonant circuits achieve this with ease.

...Keith


Absolutely incorrect! If capacitance is defined as Coulombs/Volt, then
how are you getting more coulombs than you put in? Remember, i said Root Mean
Square voltage.

How does a capacitor reflect more power than you feed it?

It's almost time for me to cut out of this discussion, if you still don't
understand me.


Slick

It's NOT very easy to tell that your two diagrams are the same, Cecil!

At any rate, at resonance, the reactances should cancel out, and the 50 ohms
should be left.


Slick

Richard Clark wrote:
All of this means that you are long on wind when it comes to claims, ...

What is it that you think I have claimed?
--
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! =-----

Radio913 wrote:

It's NOT very easy to tell that your two diagrams are the same, Cecil!

At any rate, at resonance, the reactances should cancel out, and the 50 ohms
should be left.

Is the voltage across the capacitor higher than the source voltage?
Is the reactive power on the capacitor higher than the source power?
--
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! =-----

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:19:18 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
All of this means that you are long on wind when it comes to claims, ...

What is it that you think I have claimed?

Hi Cecil,

Well you've never claimed to have any sort of attention span.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:47:32 -0500, W5DXP
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Do you measure V/I with a thermometer?

One certainly can. If there's no temperature rise, the resistance
value is dissipationless.

Hi Cecil,

What is the V/I for a 1 degree rise?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I suppose if you gust on enough, there is no temperature rise in your
mind. Talk about air cooled resistors. You can keep your hands in
your pockets.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
I suppose if you gust on enough, there is no temperature rise in your
mind.

My mind remains at a fairly constant 99.2 degrees F. Somewhere in my
pile of junk is a device that measures the temperature of an IC. The
last time I used it was last century on a 4:1 voltage balun in AZ.
--
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! =-----

Roy, WtEL wrote:
"There are a lot of TDR and oscilloscope users out there to contradict
that." (Step functions lost interest with the demise of telegraph, but
ones and zeros are back bigger than ever.)

Lord Kelvin, William Thomson suggested in the 19th century that life may
have arrived here from outer space. He died in 1907. Do you suppose he
was using TDR with an oscilloscope to determine subsea cable faults?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Richard Clark wrote:
I suppose if you gust on enough, there is no temperature rise in your
mind.

My mind remains at a fairly constant 99.2 degrees F. Somewhere in my
pile of junk is a device that measures the temperature of an IC. The
last time I used it was last century on a 4:1 voltage balun in AZ.

Wow Cecil, yours was the only posting on this thread on Sunday
which is considerably down from the last months massive offerings.
Is it possible that all is now known about this subject?
Is it a case of saying the same things over and over again
is exhausting all. I must admit that I understand little if
anything about the subject but I must say I am pleased that the
group has returned to the mundane subject of antennas even tho
some may regard it as dumbing down the subject. Hopefully this
subject is so now well understood your paper will be accepted
by somebody and the subject can then be barred for all time
by the ARRL.
Have a happy day
Art