|
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:56:57 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote: "Richard Clark" wrote: Asked: At one length, one coil exhibits Vf = 0.02, reduce the coil length, what length for the SAME coil would that be to render Vf = 0.2 for instance? 3. we are not changing pitch/lambda So what is the pitch for one turn? Turning aside what is obvious (that having been answered separately); we can observe that one coil of a fixed pitch (it seems to bear repeating for Cecil) does not exhibit a Vf increase from 0.02 to 0.2 by cutting the coil down to one turn. Cecil needs to accomplish what is doable instead of turning to radical solutions that fail early. |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
"Richard Clark" wrote: Pitch for any coil remains the same irrespective of its length. Frequency does not change, diameter does not change; it then follows that Vf does not change when a coil is shortened. Gee, I wish I had said that. Now you can argue with Gene. :-) -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
"Richard Clark" wrote:
Turning aside what is obvious (that having been answered separately); we can observe that one coil of a fixed pitch (it seems to bear repeating for Cecil) does not exhibit a Vf increase from 0.02 to 0.2 by cutting the coil down to one turn. Cecil needs to accomplish what is doable instead of turning to radical solutions that fail early. This is really strange. You are agreeing with what I have been saying so your argument is with Gene, not me. What I have said is that as the pitch is decreased the VF increases and vice versa. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:56:37 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote: "Richard Clark" wrote: Turning aside what is obvious (that having been answered separately); we can observe that one coil of a fixed pitch (it seems to bear repeating for Cecil) does not exhibit a Vf increase from 0.02 to 0.2 by cutting the coil down to one turn. Cecil needs to accomplish what is doable instead of turning to radical solutions that fail early. This is really strange. That you haven't answered the question? No, not strange at all. |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:53:08 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote: "Richard Clark" wrote: Pitch for any coil remains the same irrespective of its length. Frequency does not change, diameter does not change; it then follows that Vf does not change when a coil is shortened. Gee, I wish I had said that. Now you can argue with Gene. :-) So you didn't say it? You seem to have difficulty expressing concepts then, don't you? I bet you can't even restate what you THINK has been said to say it yourself. No point in waiting, because I won that bet already. |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:56:37 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote: "Richard Clark" wrote: Turning aside what is obvious (that having been answered separately); we can observe that one coil of a fixed pitch (it seems to bear repeating for Cecil) does not exhibit a Vf increase from 0.02 to 0.2 by cutting the coil down to one turn. Cecil needs to accomplish what is doable instead of turning to radical solutions that fail early. What I have said is that as the pitch is decreased the VF increases and vice versa. You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm? Remarkable shortening of your own theory there. Perhaps you might want to try again using real numbers. Simply because you play the pity card of forgetfulness (blaming your reader usually as a bluff) we will reprise the question once again: Asked: At one length, one coil exhibits Vf = 0.02, reduce the coil length, what length for the SAME coil would that be to render Vf = 0.2 for instance? 1. We are not changing frequency; 2. we are not changing diameter/lambda (nor in fact changing diameter OR lambda); 3. we are not changing pitch/lambda (nor in fact changing pitch OR lambda). SAME coil means the one being offered, and being shortened - all other provisos stand |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Richard Clark wrote:
Asked: At one length, one coil exhibits Vf = 0.02, reduce the coil length, what length for the SAME coil would that be to render Vf = 0.2 for instance? "Richard Clark" wrote: Pitch for any coil remains the same irrespective of its length. Frequency does not change, diameter does not change; it then follows that Vf does not change when a coil is shortened. Doesn't your own posting answer your question? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm?
Remarkable shortening of your own theory there. Perhaps you might want to try again using real numbers. Simply because you play the pity card of forgetfulness (blaming your reader usually as a bluff) we will reprise the question once again: Asked: At one length, one coil exhibits Vf = 0.02, reduce the coil length, what length for the SAME coil would that be to render Vf = 0.2 for instance? 1. We are not changing frequency; 2. we are not changing diameter/lambda (nor in fact changing diameter OR lambda); 3. we are not changing pitch/lambda (nor in fact changing pitch OR lambda). SAME coil means the one being offered, and being shortened - all other provisos stand |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Richard Clark wrote:
You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm? Remarkable shortening of your own theory there. You appear to have forgotten which side you were arguing but 1/2 of a turn should increase the VF over one turn. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:48:54 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm? Remarkable shortening of your own theory there. You appear to have forgotten which side you were arguing but 1/2 of a turn should increase the VF over one turn. You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm? Remarkable shortening of your own theory there. Perhaps you might want to try again using real numbers. Simply because you play the pity card of forgetfulness (blaming your reader usually as a bluff) we will reprise the question once again: Asked: At one length, one coil exhibits Vf = 0.02, reduce the coil length, what length for the SAME coil would that be to render Vf = 0.2 for instance? 1. We are not changing frequency; 2. we are not changing diameter/lambda (nor in fact changing diameter OR lambda); 3. we are not changing pitch/lambda (nor in fact changing pitch OR lambda). SAME coil means the one being offered, and being shortened - all other provisos stand |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Gene Fuller wrote:
You are the expert on Vf. You assert without proof that a half-length coil has the same Vf as the full-length resonant coil. OK, even if I accepted that supposition, what happens at a quarter-length or at a tenth-length? I am simply asking how the function changes between the "known" limits of 1.0 and 0.02. You have repeatedly ducked any sort of answer. Seems Richard Clark has proven that it doesn't change between the "known" limits of 1.0 and 0.02. Where did those "known" limits come from anyway? For a single turn coil, seems the VF would roughly be the pitch divided by the circumference, something that would equal 1.0 only when the pitch and circumference were equal. For the 4 TPI, 6" diameter coil, the VF formula yields 0.02. The pitch divided by the circumference yields 0.013. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Richard Clark wrote:
You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm? Remarkable shortening of your own theory there. It was Gene Fuller who said the coil varied between the "known" limits of 1.0 and 0.02, not I. I just replied to Gene's posting. You and I seem to be in agreement that the VF of the coil doesn't change with a change in length. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Cecil,
Since you have fallen back to the old "round and round the helix" model there is little hope for agreement. It is interesting, however, that even the Corum model for Vf at resonance is not as slow as the purely geometric model. Must be those standing waves again. 73, Gene W4SZ Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: You are the expert on Vf. You assert without proof that a half-length coil has the same Vf as the full-length resonant coil. OK, even if I accepted that supposition, what happens at a quarter-length or at a tenth-length? I am simply asking how the function changes between the "known" limits of 1.0 and 0.02. You have repeatedly ducked any sort of answer. Seems Richard Clark has proven that it doesn't change between the "known" limits of 1.0 and 0.02. Where did those "known" limits come from anyway? For a single turn coil, seems the VF would roughly be the pitch divided by the circumference, something that would equal 1.0 only when the pitch and circumference were equal. For the 4 TPI, 6" diameter coil, the VF formula yields 0.02. The pitch divided by the circumference yields 0.013. |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
"Gene Fuller" wrote: W5DXP wrote: For the 4 TPI, 6" diameter coil, the VF formula yields 0.02. The pitch divided by the circumference yields 0.013. Since you have fallen back to the old "round and round the helix" model there is little hope for agreement. It is interesting, however, that even the Corum model for Vf at resonance is not as slow as the purely geometric model. Must be those standing waves again. Anyone who says the current goes "round and round the helix" is wrong. Anyone who says the current goes like a "short circuit through the coil is wrong." There is NO rail "round and round the helix'! There is NO rail "short circuit through the coil"! There is, as usual, something in between the two rails. Looking at Fig. 1 in Dr. Corum's IEEE paper: For a diameter/wavelength ratio of 10^-3 If the coil is1000 turns/wavelength, the VF is 0.8 which is closer to a "short circuit through the coil" than it is to "round and round the helix". If the coil is 5000 turns/wavelength, the VF is 0.18 which is closer to "round and round the helix" than it is to a "short circuit through the coil". The field coupling between the coils is responsible for the VF not being as slow as the purely geometric model but there is a practical physical limit to the number of coils that are being coupled. Coils are a combination of primary and secondary characteristics. All the primary characteristics need to be taken into account. Some of the secondary characteristics can be omitted under certain conditions. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Richard Clark wrote:
Investigating Fig. 1 reveals there is no way to resolve the Vf through shortening a coil. Only Cecil could argue there's a pony in all that horse****, so while he's saddling himself to that mound, let's proceed to see why his dotaged enthusiasm is ill-founded. Wow! One of the bestest funniest paragraphs I've ever had the pleasure of reading! Remind me never to get on your bad side....... 8^) Back on topic now. Was there ever any correlation between the measurements made by Cecil and Yuri with the information and tests performed by Tom W8JI? I had asked the question a couple times, but have no answer yet. Maybe the message got lost. I might be being simple here, but it seems that maybe if there was a reasonable correlation drawn between the two instances.we could avoid all the other junk going on. Although getting wrapped around the axle apparently has its own benefits to some..... - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
"Michael Coslo" wrote:
Back on topic now. Was there ever any correlation between the measurements made by Cecil and Yuri with the information and tests performed by Tom W8JI? I had asked the question a couple times, but have no answer yet. Maybe the message got lost. Might have been when I was out of town. Except for a single toroidal coil anomaly, all of the measurements show a different magnitude of current at the two ends of the coils. Most of my measurements have been at the self-resonant frequency of a loading coil. A 75m mobile bugcatcher coil is part of a standing wave antenna with near-equal forward and reflected currents flowing in opposite directions (phasors rotating in opposite directions). As a result, the standing wave current on the antenna has essentially the same phase as the source current all up and down the antenna *whether a loading coil exists or not*. Standing wave current on a mobile antenna cannot be used to measure phase shift or delay through a wire or a coil. That standing wave current is of the form, I = Io*cos(kx)*cos(wt), and cannot be used to determine phase shift. So the major measurement mistakes were not in the magnitudes, which are relatively easy to measure, but in the phase-delay measurements, which were invalid. The major conceptual mistake concerns standing waves, not coils. It appears that some people didn't even realize that they were dealing with a standing wave current on a standing wave antenna. The best estimates of actual delays through the coils seems to come from the Dr. Corum IEEE paper where formulas are given for the VF and Z0 of a coil. For the particular coil being modeled in EZNEC, the VF formula yields ~0.02, or about 37 degrees for a 6" long coil on 4 MHz. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:39:11 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: It was Gene Fuller who said the coil varied between the "known" limits of 1.0 and 0.02, not I. You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm? Remarkable shortening of your own theory there. Perhaps you might want to try again using real numbers. Simply because you play the pity card of forgetfulness (blaming your reader usually as a bluff) we will reprise the question once again: Asked: At one length, one coil exhibits Vf = 0.02, reduce the coil length, what length for the SAME coil would that be to render Vf = 0.2 for instance? 1. We are not changing frequency; 2. we are not changing diameter/lambda (nor in fact changing diameter OR lambda); 3. we are not changing pitch/lambda (nor in fact changing pitch OR lambda). SAME coil means the one being offered, and being shortened - all other provisos stand |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:30:24 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote: Back on topic now. Was there ever any correlation between the measurements made by Cecil and Yuri with the information and tests performed by Tom W8JI? Hi Mike, Well, you have a serious problem embodied in your statement. Neither Cecil nor Yuri made any measurements. Perhaps Yuri observed some shrink tube that had charred while he was working power, but actually that is a stretch (not shrink) as he "observed" this only after the fact. You certainly have read enough correspondence to observe for yourself that Yuri cannot describe any system fully, so saying there were correlations can only come from a heated imagination (more current in than coming out). If there have been any experimental details made under observed conditions, we have to credit Tom. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
My take on it is that Richard just loves yanking a chain that's
particularly easy to yank and will invariably respond in a way that allows more yanking. Everybody has long since agreed in principle; it's just that some people remain buried so deeply in the forest that they can't see it for all the trees. Or maybe it's that they are buried so deeply in the pile that Richard was mentioning that they can't find the pony that's been there all along to ride out on. All this wave BS is just mathematical abstraction to 'splain what's really going on anyway. If one is smart enough to actually get through the math without making computational or conceptual errors, he's still going to be lost if he doesn't relate it back to what it is that the math is explaining. His loss; too bad. Cheers, Tom (Hope I didn't let your secret out of the bag, Richard!) |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On 21 Apr 2006 10:40:47 -0700, "K7ITM" wrote:
My take on it is that Richard just loves yanking a chain that's particularly easy to yank and will invariably respond in a way that allows more yanking. I can do that by simply asking for data. (Hope I didn't let your secret out of the bag, Richard!) Hi Tom, The "secret," as you put it, is still as hidden to them as the WMD. As you infer, it is rather all too easy to stir, but harder to accomplish. Inferior talents prove that daily. None here see but perhaps a tenth or less of what I've written; because as with good technical writing, the best comedy is what is left after pruning the excess from it. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Richard Clark wrote:
Neither Cecil nor Yuri made any measurements. I made self-resonance measurements on loading coils and standing wave current measurements on a 6m dipole. W8JI said my measurements were in error. W7EL said my measurements agreed with EZNEC. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Cecil Moore wrote:
Actually, it's just the other way around. How is one ever going to understand what's really going on by superposing waves to the point where half the information is lost? Cecil, That question explains everything. It demonstrates conclusively that you no understanding of superposition. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Actually, it's just the other way around. How is one ever going to understand what's really going on by superposing waves to the point where half the information is lost? Cecil, That question explains everything. It demonstrates conclusively that you no understanding of superposition. 73, Gene W4SZ It also demonstrates that I can't proofread two sentences. |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:12:32 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Neither Cecil nor Yuri made any measurements. I made self-resonance measurements on loading coils and standing wave current measurements on a 6m dipole. W8JI said my measurements were in error. W7EL said my measurements agreed with EZNEC. My appologies, so you did. |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:53:40 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Actually, it's just the other way around. How is one ever going to understand what's really going on by superposing waves to the point where half the information is lost? Cecil, That question explains everything. It demonstrates conclusively that you no understanding of superposition. 73, Gene W4SZ It also demonstrates that I can't proofread two sentences. Perhaps half the information was lost by superpositioning them. |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Actually, it's just the other way around. How is one ever going to understand what's really going on by superposing waves to the point where half the information is lost? That question explains everything. It demonstrates conclusively that you no understanding of superposition. Here's what one of the experts told me about superposition. Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote: In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe, there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup transients died out. Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be seen again. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Gene Fuller wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Actually, it's just the other way around. How is one ever going to understand what's really going on by superposing waves to the point where half the information is lost? That question explains everything. It demonstrates conclusively that you no understanding of superposition. It also demonstrates that I can't proofread two sentences. Take two PSK signals, superpose them through the same coax, and see how much information is lost. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Well, Richard, we have it on good authority that what's really going on
is just mathematical abstraction to 'splain the wave BS. Or something like that. Whaddaya think? Maybe current and charge are just a pigment of our imaginations? Cheers, Tom |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
On 21 Apr 2006 17:26:03 -0700, "K7ITM" wrote:
Maybe current and charge are just a pigment of our imaginations? Hi Tom, I would say that it is not definitely black or white, it is a matter of gray. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Cecil Moore wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote: Back on topic now. Was there ever any correlation between the measurements made by Cecil and Yuri with the information and tests performed by Tom W8JI? I had asked the question a couple times, but have no answer yet. Maybe the message got lost. Might have been when I was out of town. Except for a single toroidal coil anomaly, all of the measurements show a different magnitude of current at the two ends of the coils. Most of my measurements have been at the self-resonant frequency of a loading coil. That isn't the design frequency though, is it? A 75m mobile bugcatcher coil is part of a standing wave antenna with near-equal forward and reflected currents flowing in opposite directions (phasors rotating in opposite directions). As a result, the standing wave current on the antenna has essentially the same phase as the source current all up and down the antenna *whether a loading coil exists or not*. Standing wave current on a mobile antenna cannot be used to measure phase shift or delay through a wire or a coil. That standing wave current is of the form, I = Io*cos(kx)*cos(wt), and cannot be used to determine phase shift. So the major measurement mistakes were not in the magnitudes, which are relatively easy to measure, but in the phase-delay measurements, which were invalid. The major conceptual mistake concerns standing waves, not coils. It appears that some people didn't even realize that they were dealing with a standing wave current on a standing wave antenna. The best estimates of actual delays through the coils seems to come from the Dr. Corum IEEE paper where formulas are given for the VF and Z0 of a coil. For the particular coil being modeled in EZNEC, the VF formula yields ~0.02, or about 37 degrees for a 6" long coil on 4 MHz. I'm not sure I have this straight. I think I understand Tom's info, yet this has me completely baffled. Would the short answer be that you do not find any correlation? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Mike Coslo wrote:
Most of my measurements have been at the self-resonant frequency of a loading coil. That isn't the design frequency though, is it? No, so I changed my approach. My present approach is to take a self-resonant coil and use only part of the coil on the *same* frequency, e.g. use half the coil as a loading coil on the *same* frequency. That way, the velocity factor should be roughly the same in either case. I'm not sure I have this straight. I think I understand Tom's info, yet this has me completely baffled. I accept his magnitude measurements as probably accurate and reasonable. His phase measurements were meaningless since standing wave current phase doesn't change relative to the source and therefore cannot be used to measure phase shift along a wire or through a coil. The standing wave current phase is the same from end to end in a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole. It cannot be used to determine the phase shift through a wire or a dipole. EZNEC reports the same thing. This is key to understanding the misconceptions involved and why the phase measurements were meaningless. Would the short answer be that you do not find any correlation? *Nobody* has made a valid measurement of the delay through a coil. There's nothing to correlate. One cannot use a signal with unchanging phase to measure that delay. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Cecil Moore wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Neither Cecil nor Yuri made any measurements. I made self-resonance measurements on loading coils and standing wave current measurements on a 6m dipole. W8JI said my measurements were in error. W7EL said my measurements agreed with EZNEC. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Cecil, Cecil, Cecil! Shame on you. When will you ever quit changing what other people say? |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Actually, it's just the other way around. How is one ever going to understand what's really going on by superposing waves to the point where half the information is lost? That question explains everything. It demonstrates conclusively that you no understanding of superposition. It also demonstrates that I can't proofread two sentences. Take two PSK signals, superpose them through the same coax, and see how much information is lost. Cecil, Strike two! More demonstration that you don't understand superposition. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Take two PSK signals, superpose them through the same coax, and see how much information is lost. Strike two! More demonstration that you don't understand superposition. Actually, more demonstration that you shy away from technical discussions in favor of inuendo. One wonders why? Please feel free to enlighten me and others about how phase is conserved during the superposition process. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Take two PSK signals, superpose them through the same coax, and see how much information is lost. Strike two! More demonstration that you don't understand superposition. Actually, more demonstration that you shy away from technical discussions in favor of inuendo. One wonders why? Please feel free to enlighten me and others about how phase is conserved during the superposition process. Cecil, There is nothing in the concept of superposition that will prevent you from munging up something. I have no idea how you are planning to "superpose" two signals through the same coax, and therefore I have no idea what might happen to the phase. Go back and review what superposition means. I have stated it here before. It is a standard concept presented in many math, science, and technology textbooks. In simplified form, when superposition applies it says that the output from the combination of two inputs is the same as the sum of the outputs from each input taken one at a time. This is precisely what allows all of the various authors to say that one can consider a standing wave to be equivalent to two opposite direction traveling waves. This is purely a mathematical notion; superposition does not impact the physical reality at all. Superposition does not always apply. Only systems that are linear can be expected to exhibit superposition properties. If you choose to add a second input that was not there previously then the combined output will be different than the output from the original single input. I didn't know I shied away from technical discussions. I thought you were quoting me as one of your gurus when it was convenient. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Gene Fuller wrote:
In simplified form, when superposition applies it says that the output from the combination of two inputs is the same as the sum of the outputs from each input taken one at a time. The point is that phase is not preserved through the superposition process and as you have noted before, the phase information completely disappears from the superposed standing wave current. This is precisely what allows all of the various authors to say that one can consider a standing wave to be equivalent to two opposite direction traveling waves. This is purely a mathematical notion; superposition does not impact the physical reality at all. It certainly impacts the physical reality of W7EL's phase measurements. If he measured the delay through the coil using the forward current, he would obtain valid results. If he measured the delay through the coil using the reflected current, he would obtain valid results. But the superposition of those two currents results in a signal with unchanging phase that cannot validly be used to determine the delay through a wire or a coil or anything else. I thought you were quoting me as one of your gurus when it was convenient. Yes, because you agree with me on most technical points. Your arguments with me are invariably personal, not technical. I am not aware of a single technical point upon which you and I disagree. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: I thought you were quoting me as one of your gurus when it was convenient. Yes, because you agree with me on most technical points. Your arguments with me are invariably personal, not technical. I am not aware of a single technical point upon which you and I disagree. Cecil, Be assured that I disagree with you on a great many technical points. 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ |
Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
Gene Fuller wrote:
Be assured that I disagree with you on a great many technical points. Name one. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com