Richard Clark wrote:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:44:06 -0000, "Dave" wrote:


guess the v/i discussion is over now.


Hi Dave,

It may have been tailored in that vernacular, but it was actually
never about that at all. As the last "thin-film" comment reveals, it
has always been about how one mind can encompass two contradictory
positions (total cancellation - non total cancellation) about the same
mechanism (a quarterwave matching section).

In other words: A Troll.

The humor here is that supposedly the thin-film offers "total"
cancellation for the same reason that the quarter wave from this bench
test does not. :-)

In fact, neither exhibit "total" cancellation, but to maintain the
charade one or the other does, then that charade must fail, and these
recent arguments have just revealed that fracture.

Some time ago I offered results from the bench in just how much light
was in fact returned from a thin-film section, and this was rejected
as impossible - hence the allusion to brighter than the sun light
being rendered as black to satisfy this illusion of "totality" in
cancellation. This reflected light was buried in the digits, but
still and all, far brighter than the sun (such is the vast range of
accommodation that the eye offers as a measuring device).

On the flip side, any leakage (reflection back) from a quarterwave
section suffers identical issues. Those reflections are buried in the
digits too. This is orders of magnitude different from the speculated
4.17 watts which is a farrago. Does a Bird have the same scope of
resolution as the eye? Hardly. The inherent error of the meter at
±5% vastly overwhelms such products (the eye does not suffer such
error for other reasons - imagine what a driver's eye-check test would
be like if it did).

So, to advance this itinerant concept of Owen's demonstration not
busting the myth of the requirement for line sections, this troll has
diverged from the topic to haul out a spurious argument that is in
direct conflict with other discussions of the same topic, from the
same troll. It necessarily demands a villain to suit the melodrama
offered. That villain is the Bird and its failure is to reveal a
power. Left unsaid is that actual power is, as I said, buried in the
digits and wholly irresolvable. Further, it is NOT the claim of 4.17
watts which was rummaged up. The Bird would be incapable of resolving
the actual reflection products from a real quarterwave section. Thus
it cannot absorb the sin of this counter-proof (sic).

Let's just say that statements that arbitrarily assign ideal concepts
like "totality" suffer across the board - and when these forced
assignments are used as the link pin to "theories," then they can lead
to amusing contradictions and failures of logic like those we've been
witness to here.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I think it might also be interesting to discuss the instance in which
the Bird is interfaced with a real halfwave section.

ac6xg