On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:49:48 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

So much depends on the Q quality of the meter itself.

Hi Reggie,

The "Q of the meter?" What a hoot. Would that be the impedance of
the handles over the resistance of the cover?

Let's also observe the Madison Avenue flair: "Q quality...." Or are
we to believe you are a proponent of measuring the Q of quality? Think
Lord Kelvinator would want a number put to it?

Nobody knows what the actual value actually is! Least of all the user!

Let's see, if the user picks up an Ohmmeter to measure a resistance,
he doesn't initially know the resistance, he doesn't know the
accuracy, hence the meter is invalidated for existing, the user
suddenly lacks a metaphysical basis for being and all disappear in a
cloud of doubt.

Fortunately, the exact value of Q of a coil is never required.

Now that meters no longer exist, users have evaporated, exact Q is
never required, the coil unwinds itself in existential abnegation.

It is used only to provide coarse estimates of other quantities.

Ah! But if "It" is unknowable, "It" offers nothing - coarse or
vulgar.

And there are usually other means of finding the other quantities.

Which then loops this logic back to the impossibilty of knowability
and these quantities suddenly dematerialize from the cosmos.

They can be estimated by calculating from values which CAN be measured or
estimated.

Estimates can be made of estimates - um yas, indeed! Now there's a
authentic statement of clarity and rational self-determination. Would
it be inappropriate to appreciate the irony of your attack on accuracy
where your argument is so conclusively lacking - accuracy? ;-)

By itself a
measured value of Q is inaccurate and of no use. What matters is what
can be derived or guessed from it.

An excellent summary. If it is inaccurate and of no use, we can use
it to derive or guess something from it.

Thanx for the opportunity,
Richard Clark, KB7QHC