Chuckle.

I'm continually amazed at how different our backgrounds are. Whenever
I've encountered a complex system I don't understand, I try to begin
with a simple system, to make sure I understand it first. Only after I
know how a simple one will behave do I have a chance of understanding
the more complex one. This is the method adopted by virtually all the
capable engineers I've had the pleasure to work with over the years.

In contrast, complexity is embraced by people who have a need to conceal
a lack of understanding. By resisting simplification and constantly
pleading that the system is too complex to analyze, fundamental
understanding isn't required, and one can never be shown to be wrong. If
the best you can do in any case is to give vague answers and wave hands,
it doesn't really make any difference whether you understand it or not
-- it's impossible to tell. On the other hand, if it's necessary to
actually calculate values (as I've had to do for years as a design
engineer) and truly understand what's happening, there's no way I'll be
able to do it for a complex system if I can't even do it for a simple one.

As for standing to be wrong, I'm willing to post my measurements and my
predictions, and be wrong. So far, only Yuri has joined me.

And, Art, I'm surprised at your objecting to my bringing up the dreaded
complexity of -- gasp -- phase. You should rejoice, because it gives me
twice the opportunity to show just how wrong I am. If the small inductor
shows a measureable phase shift from input to output, I'll be just as
wrong as I'll be if it shows a magnitude change. So I've doubled the
odds I'll fall on my face. At the same time, it puts Cecil at no extra
risk at all, since he won't venture a prediction of either magnitude or
phase, and I feel confident in my assumption that you won't, either. I'm
the only one (except Yuri, who has bravely given a range of magnitude
values at least) who *can* be wrong, and including phase makes it all
the more likely. Surely, that should cheer you up a bit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:

Is not the group straying somewhat from the initial discussion
on E ham? That discussion that started all this was with regard to a
whip antenna and the coil on it. Why has the discussion been pulled
away from the original coil to a torroid of all things ?


Because someone can't stand to be wrong?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP