Richard Harrison wrote:
An antiresonant circuit is defined:
"Antiresonant circuit - A parallel-resonant circuit offering maximum
impedance to the series passage of the resonant frequenccy."

The traps in a trapped dipole are antiresonant.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:17:03 -0600, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Rom, KC7ITM wrote:
"I don`t think I`ve EVER heard anyone call a parallel-tuned circuit
antiresonant."

There are many synonyms I am unfamiliar with also, but I`ve heard of
antiresonance and used the word. My "Dictionary of Electronics" says:
"Antiresonance - A type of resonance in which a system offers maximum
impedance at its resonant frequency."

An antiresonant circuit is defined:
"Antiresonant circuit - A parallel-resonant circuit offering maximum
impedance to the series passage of the resonant frequenccy."

A parallel-tuned resonant circuit fits the dictionary definition. It`s a
synonym for antiresonant circuit.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

When speaking of quartz crystals, antiresonant is a commonly used
term.

It is hard to visualize exactly how these crossovers happen on a
microscopic scale, but the physics of the skin effect dictate that it
*must* happen somehow.

Theory: "...the physics of skin effect dictate that [it] *must* happen[*]somehow[*]...

Now, compute the consequences of the theory to see if it is right what
it would imply.

Compare those computation results to experiment. If they disagree, the
theory is wrong.

If you can't apply this procedure, your statement cannot be verified
scientifically.

Mike Speed wrote:
It is hard to visualize exactly how these crossovers happen on a
microscopic scale, but the physics of the skin effect dictate that it
*must* happen somehow.

Theory: "...the physics of skin effect dictate that [it] *must* happen
[*]somehow[*]...

Now, compute the consequences of the theory to see if it is right what
it would imply.

Compare those computation results to experiment. If they disagree, the
theory is wrong.

If you can't apply this procedure, your statement cannot be verified
scientifically.


Rubbish!

The word 'theory' has two different meanings - so different, they are
almost the opposite of each other. And you are using the wrong one.

You are using the layman's meaning of 'an unproven speculation' - but in
science, the word means almost the exact opposite. A scientific theory
is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural
world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a
variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena" [1].
(In scientific language, an unproven speculation is called a hypothesis
or a conjecture. It is specifically *not* called a theory.)

A *scientific* theory explains the underlying reasons for a huge number
of different experimental and practical observations, so that they all
mesh together and support each other. Theory supports observation; and
observation supports theory. Equally important, the outside edge join up
seamlessly with the theory and observations about related areas of
science. This means that scientific 'theory' is vastly more than mere
speculation: it has the power to predict what will happen in cases we
haven't even looked at yet.

As I said, the crossovers between strands of braid are hard to visualize
and predict in detail - but that is entirely our problem. Our lack of
understanding doesn't change the way things work.

There is no absolute proof that the skin effect will apply to braided
strands, but this is only a very small gap in our knowledge. At both
sides of that gap are situations where we're completely certain it does
apply. Moreover, there is no rational reason to suppose the skin affect
might fail to apply to braided strands.

Based on that solid body of theoretical and practical knowledge about
the skin effect, it only needs a very small amount of additional
speculation to bridge the gap in our knowledge about braid. Applying
what we do know to what we don't, it immediately gives us a clear and
simple explanation why the RF resistance of braid is greater than a
smooth surface, and why it increases dramatically when the braid is
corroded.

This is a perfectly normal application of scientific logic to bridge
small gaps in our knowledge. Since nothing can ever be proved in
absolute terms, I must philosophically decline your challenge to waste
time on modeling it in detail :-)

In terms of strict logic, the onus is on you to find a way to disprove
it and to offer something else in its place. Good luck with that.




[1] http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory


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

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Our lack of understanding doesn't change the way things work.

Neither does our understanding. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Mike Speed wrote:
Rubbish!

No, it isn't. That was a paraphrase from, "The Character of Physical
Law," by Richard P. Feynman, page 156, half-way down. Also from "The
Character of Physical Law," bottom, page 156, "It is scientific only to
say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all
the time the possible and impossible."

Therefore, it is more likely what Richard P. Feynman said about
scientific theories is right and what you said about scientific
theories is wrong.


Here's a clue: if even Feynman needed a whole book to cover the subject,
is there any possibility that your "paraphrase" from half-way down one
page might be incomplete, inaccurate or misleading?

The rubbish arises entirely from your habit of snipping bits from here
and there, and quoting them out of context. The history of this thread
shows that each time someone makes a considered reply, bringing back the
whole context, you snip it all out again.

Enough of that game.


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