Hi Reg, Did someone Imply that? I think they are mistaken with toroids and
physically short solenoids.
73 Gary N4AST

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''

They didn't just imply it - they actually said they had measured it. They
are still wandering around with their delusions. No names - no pack drill.
---
Reg, G4FGQ

Reg Edwards wrote:
They didn't just imply it - they actually said they had measured it. They
are still wandering around with their delusions. No names - no pack drill.

Reg, if the current phase delay through one foot of wire is 10 degrees,
how the heck can a one foot coil have a phase delay of zero degrees?
--
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! =-----

They didn't just imply it - they actually said they had measured it. They
are still wandering around with their delusions. No names - no pack drill.
---
Reg, G4FGQ


Here we go again, smart ass gurus, Rauchians - when they don't get it or run
out of arguments they resort to ridicule, name calling, questioning abilities,
etc. Why don't you pontiffs MEASURE that stuff, see it with your own eyes,
instead of "theorizing" what it "should" be?

Can you engage in civil discussions about the facts, go and verify it with
measurements and then either triumph, or admit you deficiencies. Your snotty
remarks don't do any good, don't make things right.

"They actually said they measured it" - THEY REALLY and PROPERLY MEASURED IT
and presented results. What do you have to show? Your "knowledge"? What you do
is pulling Rauch, ridiculing instead of measuring or verifying it yourself. You
will end up with big egg on your face. Then who will look stupid?

Yuri

On 04 Nov 2003 03:08:56 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
Why don't you pontiffs MEASURE that stuff, see it with your own eyes,
instead of "theorizing" what it "should" be?

Can you engage in civil discussions about the facts, go and verify it with
measurements and then either triumph, or admit you deficiencies. Your snotty
remarks don't do any good, don't make things right.

Hi Yuri,

To your credit (and it vastly outweighs the quality of sneer review)
you have gone to the bench for this one. However, this is not the
grail we are talking about; and having obtained data does not achieve
a state of grace. This is simply a starting point (and why I harp on
about the remaining data to demonstrate the actual, total current
distribution along the entire radiator). I am sure that my flack
qualifies with something more that being snotty (albeit a higher
quality of snot); but your expectation of submission from those so
impervious to performing any act that used to be the hallmark of our
avocation - well, that expectation is a fantasy.

I suppose it's cheaper than smoking dope to get the same buzz reading
some of these counter-arguments draped in quantum mechanics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

However, this is not the
grail we are talking about; and having obtained data does not achieve
a state of grace. This is simply a starting point (and why I harp on
about the remaining data to demonstrate the actual, total current
distribution along the entire radiator). I am sure that my flack
qualifies with something more that being snotty (albeit a higher
quality of snot); but your expectation of submission from those so
impervious to performing any act that used to be the hallmark of our
avocation - well, that expectation is a fantasy.

Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Sorry Richard, this did not applied to you or your postings, more to the
remarks by Reg and Roy picking on "engineers"and ridicule without basis, etc.

I agree with you, I did not do thorough investigation, modeling and
measurements. I experienced something and saw some data and notes by others to
convince me of validity of the effect. Picture of melted Minooka Special is
coming soon, another proof. I will conclude the "case" by putting together
article as mentioned. So far I still welcome any contributions to the subject.
So we have seen heated "theoretical" debates rather than more or "proper"
MEASUREMENTS.

It just kills me that we admit that loading stub shows the difference of
currents in modeling (more digestible situation for software) and then when we
replace the stub with the equivalent inductance (to maintain resonance and
dimensions of the radiator) "they" claim the current will be the same at both
ends of coil and yet magically maintain proper current distribution and
resonance of the antenna? HOW? And toroid coil? IMPOSSIBLE, but W9UCW measured
the same behavior, which jives with reality and what Cecil explains.

I believe W9UCW but I will also do my own measurements, describe them in detail
and see how is that "UNREAL".

I am pursuing this mainly to bring to attention and to maybe get those soft
antenna experts to account for it in their software so we can use it properly
to develop better antennas.

I am an engineer with some real accomplishments and I resent snotty remarks
from some armchair "experts and gurus". Prove me wrong in reality, I will
retract and apologize. Otherwise STFU if you have nothing better to offer
(applies to those with unfounded personal attacks).

Just another question for the GURUs: How does the choke in the form of coiled
coax work? The RF current is the same at both ends? What if you cut that
(proper) choke in half, what is the current at its ends? Same? Model that and
let us know? We know what happens in real life.

Yuri, K3BU.us

On 04 Nov 2003 16:52:15 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

W9UCW measured
the same behavior, which jives with reality and what Cecil explains.

Hi Yuri,

What W9UCW measured is not the inviolable truth - the same goes for
what Cecil "explains."

All measurements come with error. If you cannot express the amount of
error (literally, and not just admitting there may be "some" error),
such measurements are little more than fancified testimonials often
discarded when they don't fit some notion of reality, or heavily
emphasized when they converge with the great thesis.

The same operational contrivances hold true for "explanations." The
single greatest conceit is discarding first principles to get to the
equation that supports the newest revelation to hit since the
unification theory. My big stick is where so many reject the first
law of SWR measurement of the source matching the line for conventions
of discussion. Their "explanations" could fill the congressional
record, and make as much sense (but in reality are little more than
filibuster against re-visiting first principles).

How do you spot these charlatans of theory and application? They
cannot express how much error their work encompasses.

As for the subject line "IF"

I believe that was the title of an English film of a boy's boarding
school (by Lindsay Anderson) where the students (Malcom McDowell) went
to the roofs with rifles and started popping off their dons.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

[snip]
Does anyone understand the implications of a distributed network?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
[snip]

Zeno perhaps?

--
Peter K1PO
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL