Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Richard, that was a darned good response, clear and to the point,
Makes me feel a bit silly. Actually Richard this same question has been bothering me for some time in my modeling, As you know I am dealing with coupling of radiated circuits. I know you are not in agreement in what I am doing but that is not important at this time. When I realised that one cannot get the Q that one desires it was really brought home to me what many had said to me about top band and low efficiencies. Not only have I had it brought home to me that there is more to an inductance than I realised but also the difficulties of modeling its many facets. The last month or so I have modeled and remodeled my coupling inductor not only by splitting it up into more than one but also spacing them out so they represent the actual inductance length plus making the diameter of those element segments the same as the coil diameter, all these present different efficiencies tho not by very much . But then the bandwidth on the model is much narrower that the actual antenna!. My first reaction is that the coil is more lossier than the model shows but what it really shows is that the program can't handle inductances to my satisfaction thus for me this thread is enlarging my education. So your comments are very welcome. Regards Art yRichard Clark wrote in message . .. On 13 Nov 2003 08:56:04 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote: Richard, You have written quite extensively on this thread, a lot of it being comments that I just dont understand. It would help you, me, and the rest if you simply asked each time that occurs. I posted 11 times to Yuri's thread of 183 I posted ONCE to Roy's thread of 103 I posted 5 (now 6) times to this You've posted 8 times total among them - you know, that still leaves something like 300 postings, 90%, by others (and among not too many different individuals). I can certainly offer that my writing has more impact, but hardly as much tonnage. YMMV If you don't like the way it is going or the people involved are not coming to you' as is their job, to present absolute proof then why bother with these people or the thread. You might as well ask those who live in pollution why they don't simply stop breathing. Can't you bend just a bit and go with the flow when unsurmountable proof is not presented to you first, which you say is everybodies job. With 80% of the weather vanes already turned into the wind, why would I want to do that? Art you pine for a more soothed and tranquil passage across what is in fact a stormy sea. Didn't you yourself invite me to participate ? If so you must certainly had some interest in what the lesser people were saying. You focus too much on these herculean threads and it would behoove you to participate outside of them (and I will offer that you already have). The majority of my correspondence is in fact with those asking questions that these titans have disdained from answering: Parasitic Question... Hints for a quasi professional cage... Penn state fractal... dielectric antennas... OCF Dipole... ant coupler and silver mica... Magloop woes 1.2 GHz antennas... Device by an antenna... to trust which SWR meter... in the last week alone. Do you see any insistence by me for absolute accuracy, or demands for proofs in those? No, Art, I reserve that for those who are too lame to defend outrageous claims. None of the topics above qualify in that regard. Well maybe one inflated soul, perhaps. A guy with 9 actual out of 12 patents claimed - should I put on a happy face and simply offered "Bravo! 9 out of 12 is good enough"? People like that inflated the stock bubble of 2000. To put it simply, if you lay it out as a fact, I will test it as a fact. If you lay it out as an idea, then there is something to listen to. I can let ideas pass on their own merit, but facts have a status that require validation. If you want an idea validated, that requires the assistance of psychiatry or religion because you are mixing faith and science inappropriately. If you want to argue faith and/or science, it belongs in the Racist and Democracy threads that I eschew. I will admit I love kicking out the crutches of cripples who are obvious charlatans. In my youth I walked past too many street urchins begging for spare change (called flower children then) who are now robbing companies of earnings as CEO's (they were flower children because what change they couldn't scrabble up for dope, they could call home for from Daddy-kins, or Mummy-kins to help bail them out). This simply means I can tell (as many can, it is no great talent) the difference between an honest call for help, and a fool's mission. Long threads such as this and others contain no more than 20% real content. When I have responded to that, the remainder begs for entertainment critiques (generally very poor material and easily mocked). As a benefit, my critiques are far more entertaining too. Roy's separate thread started out shame-based, I recognized it from the start because I can do it so much better, and have. It deserved only one comment from me because it was lost from the beginning. That it ran to some 100+ postings proves its lack of material and its girth of ego. My own shame-based topics have run to less postings than the total of Roy's tap dancing. The only difference is my ego requires less from me, and is satisfied with the silence of others humbled by their poverty of refute. ;-) Why not look at the possitives presented and put aside attempts to deflate or deride honest attempts to explain. You are apparently a computor expert so why not derive a system where a inductance is transfered to a system that can easily be modeled since there seems to be some interest in the matter and you would good chance of becoming a hero to all. Both Roy and I offered a protocol to do just that - BEFORE these 300+ postings! You simply have to read Yuri's page to observe it, and how it is accomplished. Then ask yourself, what quality of discussion from 300+ posts in its complete indifference could be called meritorious? Still your friend and hanging on Art Hi Art, Probably more that what you wanted to know. All part of my service in providing entertainment analysis and criticism when no data is offered and no principles of science are being tested. As to your comment of my becoming a hero to all - not the model I aspire to at all. Heros, in literature and legend, either die in the last act, or are insipid and overwhelmingly dull individuals. I am content to allow for 100 Heroes to rise here in my place. :-) What I am is a triple threat. I know the material, I can write, and I don't give a damn (which is to say, I don't care if I'm wrong, because I can change that by anyone proving it). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
Smith Chart Quiz | Antenna | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna | |||
Eznec modeling loading coils? | Antenna |