Richard Clark wrote:
No further analysis is required, it has been performed and data
taken has demonstrated it.

Nuff said! Guess that settles it - and you don't want or need to
understand the underlying physics. Why do you keep posting?

If you choose to put forward a variant employing reactance, you could
at least step up to the bench to offer confirmatory or rejecting
evidence as I did.

I don't understand how to set up your experiment. Your verbal
description was extremely confusing. How about a decent diagram?
--
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 Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:33:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
If I say, "It is always daylight at 12 noon." and you quote
me as saying "It is always daylight ", you have turned my true
statement into a false statement which is not an ethical thing
to do.

Hi Cecil,

I don't know why you bother with discussion of ethics when you cannot
respond to the technical enquiry. This is your 12th entry in this
side thread that was NOT addressed to you and you have nothing to
offer but the squishy touchy problem of your perception of a moral
dilemma whose discussion is best left to a democrat running for
office.

And this silliness about "true statements" is absurd in its own right
and easily an example of a moral rigidity that brooks no contrary
evidence. Unlike you, I am fully aware of my errors, their source,
and their contribution or benign influence upon other discussion. You
have spent to much time in a binary world, a womb that has insulated
you from the reality of uneven edges and impure solutions. You are
out of your element trying to force fit nature into the only solution
you have from a xeroxed page.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:56:18 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I don't understand how to set up your experiment. Your verbal
description was extremely confusing. How about a decent diagram?

Hi Cecil,

Then argue what constitutes a decent diagram? Cecil, you are a
goldbrick. Frankly, I have no interest in explaining it to you. That
is why I offered it only once. All that need be said was said, and I
responded to every technical enquiry you put to me. That you are
confused is your own problem and not my responsibility.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
You are
out of your element trying to force fit nature into the only solution
you have from a xeroxed page.

Maybe so, but that xeroxed page is what you offered as a reference.
That's why I xeroxed it. Nothing on that page has changed since I
xeroxed it. It still talks about a "resonant rise of voltage" in
series resonant circuits, the most probable cause of a variation in
SWR and the very thing that you refuse to accept or acknowledge.
--
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! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
I don't understand how to set up your experiment. Your verbal
description was extremely confusing. How about a decent diagram?

Then argue what constitutes a decent diagram?

No, you have presented absolutely no diagram at all - just a set
of unintelligible words. You have a web page. Why are you afraid
to publish a schematic?
--
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! =-----

You've got to be careful with cause and effect. There's not a direct
correspondence between loss and characteristic reactance.

A transmission line can be very lossy, yet have a completely real
characteristic impedance. Such a line doesn't have any reactance term in
its characteristic impedance to "account for" its loss. To learn more
about these, look up "distortionless line" in the index of your favorite
transmission line text.

The converse, however, isn't true. Any line which has a reactive Z0 does
have loss. You can find the equations needed to calculate Z0 and loss
coefficient alpha from R, G, L, and C in _Reference Data for Radio
Engineers_. Deriving from them an equation directly relating alpha and
Z0 should give you something to do for a number of long winter evenings.
Maybe even give you a break from thinking about waves of average power
bouncing about.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
David Robbins wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:

Does (R+jXL)/(G+jXC) really equal 2500 for RG-174 on 12m? The specs
say the Z0 of RG-174 is a nominal 50 ohms.


of course its not exactly 2500, otherwise there would be no loss. but
its
close, maybe 2500+j10 or something like that. and even the resistive
part
may not be exact, the nominal 50 ohms could be 45 to 55 depending on the
tolerances of the manufacturer.


Comparing the 6dB loss of RG-174 to the 0.14 dB loss for hardline -
is all that extra loss accounted for in the +j10 term?

Roy Lewallen wrote:
A transmission line can be very lossy, yet have a completely real
characteristic impedance.

That's what I thought. Is RG-174 one of those transmission lines?

Maybe even give you a break from thinking about waves of average power
bouncing about.

At least with average power, one cannot violate the conservation of
energy principle by creating instantaneous energy in a passive load. :-)
--
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! =-----

Cecil wrote:
Is a simple "yes" or "no"
too much to ask?

From Richard, yes.

Richard Clark wrote:
If you choose to put forward a variant employing reactance, you could
at least step up to the bench to offer confirmatory or rejecting
evidence as I did.

OK, here's an interesting data point. I adjusted my IC-756PRO for 5W
output on 7.2 MHz using the following circuit.

7.2MHz 5W source---(+j442)---(-j442)---50 ohm dummy load

SWR meter at the dummy load read 5W forward with an SWR of 1:1

Then I installed the SWR meter between the coil and the cap. With 5W
supplied by the source, the forward power read 150 watts. Indicated
SWR was 3:1
--
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! =-----

Reg Edwards wrote:
But where have you hidden this remarkable transmission line which is long
enough to mug and hoodwink so-called SWR meters?

It does not exist!

Your argument falls flat at the start.

Reg, I asked the question over on sci.phisics.electromag and got
the following answer:

So unless almost all the power diverts into an undesireable
mode (by a factor of more than a million to one), one foot
of (RG-213) cable should see pure TEM at the end.

So according to a pretty smart guy, one foot of RG-213 on each side
of a 50 ohm SWR meter will ensure that the SWR meter is in the 50 ohm
environment for which it was designed. I have three feet of RG-400
on each side of mine.
--
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! =-----