This thread ran almost as long as "47KW CB mobile, was CW =
Engineer?"

Not sure which holds the duration record.

Cheers, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
This thread ran almost as long as "47KW CB mobile, was CW =
Engineer?"

Not sure which holds the duration record.

Cheers, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I counted almost 500 entries. Cecil had almost 25% of them.

Dave N

David G. Nagel wrote:
I counted almost 500 entries. Cecil had almost 25% of them.

I kicked it off with "Current in loading coils". Reg then
responded with "Current through coils" and the rest is
history. When one is up against most of the r.r.a.a gurus,
all at the same time, one needs to make a lot of postings.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I counted almost 500 entries. Cecil had almost 25% of them.

Dave N
===================================

- - - and I get the impression nobody learned anything!

Problems should be handed over to the sewer rats in Rio de Janerio to
sort out, rather than culling them.
----
Reg.

Reg Edwards wrote:
- - - and I get the impression nobody learned anything!

You think nobody learned anything from the fact that
measuring standing wave current phase is meaningless?
If nobody learned anything, they would no doubt still
be contributing to the technical discussion.

Here's what I think happened. Person A and Person B
engage in an argument and both are wrong. Person A
believes he cannot possibly be wrong so he digs in and
argues his rigid position. Person B realizes that he may
be wrong and uses the scientific method to fine tune his
argument thus correcting any errors along the way.

Which person has the advantage and is likely to win
the argument?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Reg Edwards wrote:
- - - and I get the impression nobody learned anything!

You think nobody learned anything from the fact that
measuring standing wave current phase is meaningless?
If nobody learned anything, they would no doubt still
be contributing to the technical discussion.

Here's what I think happened. Person A and Person B
engage in an argument and both are wrong. Person A
believes he cannot possibly be wrong so he digs in and
argues his rigid position. Person B realizes that he may
be wrong and uses the scientific method to fine tune his
argument thus correcting any errors along the way.

Which person has the advantage and is likely to win
the argument?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


Hi Cecil

I've read more than 80% of the posts in this thread. I still dont
understand the objective. BUT, I sure have learned a few things, thanks to
you guys who do what is being soughtafter.

Jerry

Hi Cecil

I've read more than 80% of the posts in this thread. I still
dont
understand the objective. BUT, I sure have learned a few things,
thanks to
you guys who do what is being soughtafter.

Jerry
=======================================

Ah, but how do you know you learned the RIGHT things? Or what you
learned was true and correct?

The participants in the argument NEVER agreed on ANYTHING. So what can
bystanders do?

I learned far more about people than I did about current through
coils. Quite interesting nevertheless.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...

Hi Cecil

I've read more than 80% of the posts in this thread. I still
dont
understand the objective. BUT, I sure have learned a few things,
thanks to
you guys who do what is being soughtafter.

Jerry
=======================================

Ah, but how do you know you learned the RIGHT things? Or what you
learned was true and correct?

The participants in the argument NEVER agreed on ANYTHING. So what can
bystanders do?

I learned far more about people than I did about current through
coils. Quite interesting nevertheless.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

Hi Reg

I note that you question my ability to know if I learned the Right Things.
How do we ever know?? I wrote that I learned a FEW things. Let me be the
judge about whats right for me.
I dont know if you wrote the question about my learning the Right thing to
impune my ability to sort out the Right from the NotRight, or you wrote to
imply that were some statements made in the thread that werent right.
I submit to you that if you find the need to show where any statement made
in the antenna group that isnt True and Correct, you can correct them
directly.
By my standards, all the posts in this thread were worthy of being read.
It is even possible that you learn something from these guys on the
antenna group when you take time to read and think.
Please dont stop trying to learn Reg, you are a great source of good
information and you can improve if you try.

Jerry

Jerry Martes wrote:
I've read more than 80% of the posts in this thread.
I still dont understand the objective.

Since the foundation of other's measurements was
the use of standing wave current phase to prove the
percentage of a wavelength occupied by a loading
coil is zero, my objective was simple: To prove
that the standing wave current, with its unchanging
phase, cannot be used to make a valid measurement
of the percentage of a wavelength occupied by a loading
coil.

I proved that using the standing wave current phase to
measure the percentage of a wavelength occupied by a
wire or a whip also yields an answer of zero. If the
coil plus the whip both occupy a percentage of a
wavelength equal to zero, all sorts of laws of physics
are violated. Not to mention a full length 1/2WL wire
dipole occupying a percentage of a wavelength equal
to zero.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

I could have sworn that you were insisting the phase still had meaning
in a standing wave environment. It only required the correct measurement
technique.

I am glad to see that you have now adopted the truth, even if the
history appears a bit shaky.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jerry Martes wrote:

I've read more than 80% of the posts in this thread.

I still dont understand the objective.

Since the foundation of other's measurements was
the use of standing wave current phase to prove the
percentage of a wavelength occupied by a loading
coil is zero, my objective was simple: To prove
that the standing wave current, with its unchanging
phase, cannot be used to make a valid measurement
of the percentage of a wavelength occupied by a loading
coil.

I proved that using the standing wave current phase to
measure the percentage of a wavelength occupied by a
wire or a whip also yields an answer of zero. If the
coil plus the whip both occupy a percentage of a
wavelength equal to zero, all sorts of laws of physics
are violated. Not to mention a full length 1/2WL wire
dipole occupying a percentage of a wavelength equal
to zero.