Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean.

And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll
translate it into what it suits you to have them say.

Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but
why is your translation better than mine? Incidentally, that was
*humor* based on my time at Texas A&M during the 1950's. Freshmen
had to admit to upper-classmen that they were lower than the
lowest ... You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees
with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase
such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts?
You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and
never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo.

Einstein is rolling over in his grave laughing at Roy's assertion
that photonic energy can "slosh around" in the transmission line.
Photonic energy always travels at the speed of light obeying the
laws of conservation of energy and momentum. (Shades of the court
that convicted Galileo to house arrest. If you think you are
capable of convicting me to house arrest, come on down to Madison
County, TX and meet all my cousins in law-enforcement. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:17:39 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Shades of the court that convicted Galileo to house arrest.
There ya' go again.
Having problems dropping your balls off the Tower of Pisa?

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:17:39 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Shades of the court that convicted Galileo to house arrest.

There ya' go again.

Yep, it keeps coming back to that regarding closed minds
incapable thinking an original thought.

Having problems dropping your balls off the Tower of Pisa?

Yep, apparently I'm trying to drop them off the wrong side. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:39:47 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Having problems dropping your balls off the Tower of Pisa?
Yep, apparently I'm trying to drop them off the wrong side.
Explains your outrageous gaffs. Did they deflect, reflect, or
diffract?

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.


Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean.


And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll
translate it into what it suits you to have them say.


Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but
why is your translation better than mine? Incidentally, that was
*humor* based on my time at Texas A&M during the 1950's. Freshmen
had to admit to upper-classmen that they were lower than the
lowest ... You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees
with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase
such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts?
You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and
never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo.

Einstein is rolling over in his grave laughing at Roy's assertion
that photonic energy can "slosh around" in the transmission line.
Photonic energy always travels at the speed of light obeying the
laws of conservation of energy and momentum. (Shades of the court
that convicted Galileo to house arrest. If you think you are
capable of convicting me to house arrest, come on down to Madison
County, TX and meet all my cousins in law-enforcement. :-)

I guess people are getting sick and tired of your second-rate debating
technique, Cecil. I've seen Roy admit to mistakes time and again, while
the number of times you've admitted being wrong are essentially zero.
If you want to get psychological about it, I think anyone could make
a good case that you're projecting your own failings onto other
people.
Like a few others on this newsgroup, I'm looking forward to
your piece in QEX. I have a theory, that people who develop theories of
energy - in your case, power - and then defend them as strongly and
hysterically, as you do, are closet perpetual motion enthusiasts.
It will be interesting to see whether or not my admittedly
crackpot (but not as crackpot as your ideas) theory is true in
your case.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
I guess people are getting sick and tired of your second-rate debating
technique, Cecil. I've seen Roy admit to mistakes time and again, while
the number of times you've admitted being wrong are essentially zero.

Typically biased, Tom. I have admitted I was wrong at a rate of
at least three to one compared to Roy. I feel sorry for you if you
agree with Roy that when a 50 ohm SWR meter reads 4:1, the system
is Z0-matched to 50 ohms. I feel sorry for you if you insist a lumped
circuit analysis is appropriate for a distributed network problem.
I feel sorry for you if you insist that EM waves can exist without
their associated ExH energy. I feel sorry for you if you deny that
interference plays any part in transmission line matching.

How about Roy's assertion that photonic energy "sloshes" back and
forth in a transmission line? I don't recall Einstein ever saying
such was even possible. Do you really believe that photonic energy
"sloshes" back and forth? If so, I've got some "Ocean Front Property
in Arizona" reserved especially for you.

You guys have a good old boys network going here that ignores the
laws of physics and reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition. Sorry,
once in history was once too many.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:09:25 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

You guys have a good old boys network going here that ignores the
laws of physics
C'mon, now, you couldn't even get diffraction working right and you
couldn't even compute the math on reflection. If we are good ol'
boys, that must make you the hayseed of physics.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

I guess people are getting sick and tired of your second-rate debating
technique, Cecil. I've seen Roy admit to mistakes time and again, while
the number of times you've admitted being wrong are essentially zero.


Typically biased, Tom. I have admitted I was wrong at a rate of
at least three to one compared to Roy. I feel sorry for you if you
agree with Roy that when a 50 ohm SWR meter reads 4:1, the system
is Z0-matched to 50 ohms. I feel sorry for you if you insist a lumped
circuit analysis is appropriate for a distributed network problem.
I feel sorry for you if you insist that EM waves can exist without
their associated ExH energy. I feel sorry for you if you deny that
interference plays any part in transmission line matching.

How about Roy's assertion that photonic energy "sloshes" back and
forth in a transmission line? I don't recall Einstein ever saying
such was even possible. Do you really believe that photonic energy
"sloshes" back and forth? If so, I've got some "Ocean Front Property
in Arizona" reserved especially for you.

You guys have a good old boys network going here that ignores the
laws of physics and reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition. Sorry,
once in history was once too many.

Vintage Moore. As I said, Cecil, people are finally getting tired
of your silly postings. Now you've been plonked. Next you'll be
replonked, again and again until all your posts go unread.
Maybe you can convince yourself you're an unrecognized genius.
It's always good to have that to fall back on.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
Vintage Moore.

Yep, focusing on technical errors.

Vintage Donaly: Ignoring technical errors
and focusing on personalities.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean.
And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll
translate it into what it suits you to have them say.

Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but
why is your translation better than mine?

I didn't offer a "translation" of anybody else's words into something
they didn't say.

And I most certainly would NOT defend Roy Lewallen if he were wrong. He
would hate that... and in the same situation, so would I.


You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees
with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase
such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts?
You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and
never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo.

I don't hate you in the slightest, Cecil. I just hate sloppy thinking.

This is not an ego thing. It's all about defending the bedrock of basic
scientific principles and logic. If Roy or I appear rigid and
unyielding, that's because neither of us is prepared to give way if it
means breaking those basic principles.

THE most basic principle of physical science is that every bit of true
knowledge is a piece of a huge jigsaw puzzle that fits together with
everything else that's true. If it doesn't fit in with every other
piece, then it ain't true.

The absolute fascination of science - and science-based engineering - is
in understanding *how* they fit... and very occasionally, finding a few
new small pieces.

Antennas and transmission lines are bloody difficult, and complex in
every sense, so it's sometimes hard to see how the pieces fit. But that
makes it MORE important to hold fast to the underlying knowledge that
they do fit... if we could but figure out how.

The wrong way is to say: "This big puzzle is too hard, so I'll make up
my own little patch over here, and who cares if it doesn't fit?" Well I
care! I also care if other people are being led astray by the loudest
voice or the most prolific poster.

But that principle is a hard taskmaster. It means that every notion has
to be tested to see if it fits. It means being prepared to throw away a
dozen pet theories before lunchtime, if they fail to fit into that big
jigsaw puzzle. It means that getting it right is vastly more important
than "winning" an argument, or being the last man still posting when a
thread dies out.


Roy and I agree on a lot of things - so much so, it must often seem like
collusion. But it isn't - it's just another result of those basic
underlying principles. They are exactly the same in Oxford as in Oregon,
so if each of us gets it right independently, then we're inevitably led
to the same conclusions.

Anybody can make mistakes; and if that happens, Roy has often said he
wants to be corrected. So do I. If he and I don't agree on something,
the most important thing to either of us is to understand why. Give
either of us a convincing argument - namely an argument that fits in
correctly with the rest of scientific knowledge - then we'll gladly
agree and be happier for it.

In contrast, I have lots of disagreements with Reg! But they are all
about judgement calls, such as the best methods to use, or what other
people do or don't need to be told. We approach those topics very
differently, and may never agree; but I don't recall ever having
fundamentally disagreed with Reg on basic principles, and don't ever
expect that to happen.


And finally: yes, I have met Roy Lewallen. When my vacation flight in
2000 passed through Portland, we naturally made it our business to take
a look at each other! What you see here is the same guy when you meet
him. I am pleased to count him as a friend; but more important than
friendship is his uncompromising intellectual honesty about trying to
deal only in true facts.


Well, there it is. Cecil, if you still see any of this as an ego thing,
or merely "defending a friend"... then you haven't understood a single
word.



--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek