W5DXP wrote:
Ian White, G3SEK wrote:
You are using that principle of impedance substitution whenever you
calibrate your antenna impedance bridge using known values of
resistORS, capacitORS and inductORS.

Yes, but I comprehend what I am doing. For you to imply the "electrical
properties don't change" between a 50 ohm dummy load and a 50 ohm dipole
antenna is simply ridiculous.

I didn't either say that or imply it. What's truly "ridiculous" is for
you to *infer* that I did.

I think I've already made my points well enough for other readers to
judge, so I really am done this time.

No doubt you'll have the last word, Cecil. Use it well.

--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Ian White, G3SEK wrote:

W5DXP wrote:
Yes, but I comprehend what I am doing. For you to imply the "electrical
properties don't change" between a 50 ohm dummy load and a 50 ohm dipole
antenna is simply ridiculous.

I didn't either say that or imply it. What's truly "ridiculous" is for
you to *infer* that I did.

I didn't have to infer anything, Ian, those words in quotes are *your
quoted words*. Here they are again:

That whole principle relies on the fact that, at the same frequency
and in the steady state, the "definition of impedance" in terms of
its electrical properties does *not* change.

That certainly implies that there is no difference between the electrical
properties of the impedance of a 50 ohm dummy load and a 50 ohm antenna.
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----