On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:45:48 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:
John, I'm afraid you havn't the foggiest idea about how a choke balun
works. You are being confused by the Gurus' bafflegab.
....
I must be more dense than I realize. I do not see an answer to my question
in your reply. If your answer is there, I would appreciate it if you would
point it out to me.

Hi John,

No, you are no more dense than the next, and Reggie's bafflegab is no
more distinct than all that which preceded it - once you discard his
pretension.

If you simply want an explanation from him, we can all see how much
desire will be filled from that. On the other hand, there may soon be
an unzipped executable released soon.

If you simply want to know why he uttered
John, yes you would. But you would not have the choke.

The ferrite is wholly transparent to the differential currents (the
balanced and thus equally opposing line currents). Its presence or
absences is immaterial. This is the abstraction of Reggie's bafflegab
for instead simply saying you don't need a choke (the lines' balance
proves that).

Now, if that condition of balance were to ever go away (like we leave
that comfortable illusion and return to reality), then the absence of
the ferrite has also rendered your "choke" chokeless (by the degree of
its contribution because in spite of Reggie's claim, the turns of your
coil remains a choke, if only an inadequate one).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

(snip)

If you simply want to know why he uttered

John, yes you would. But you would not have the choke.


The ferrite is wholly transparent to the differential currents (the
balanced and thus equally opposing line currents). Its presence or
absences is immaterial. This is the abstraction of Reggie's bafflegab
for instead simply saying you don't need a choke (the lines' balance
proves that).

Now, if that condition of balance were to ever go away (like we leave
that comfortable illusion and return to reality), then the absence of
the ferrite has also rendered your "choke" chokeless (by the degree of
its contribution because in spite of Reggie's claim, the turns of your
coil remains a choke, if only an inadequate one).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Hi, Richard -

Although your language is a bit formal for me (I lack a formal education), I
think I understand what your are saying. I am aware that the fields caused
by the differential currents cancel (mostly). It makes sense that a magnetic
core is not necessary when the fields cancel. And, I can see where the core
is useful when the fields do not cancel. I just did not interpret Reg's
information as applying to one situation and not the other.

Thank you and 73.

John

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:45:48 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:


Reg Edwards wrote:

John, I'm afraid you havn't the foggiest idea about how a choke balun
works. You are being confused by the Gurus' bafflegab.

...

I must be more dense than I realize. I do not see an answer to my question
in your reply. If your answer is there, I would appreciate it if you would
point it out to me.


Hi John,

No, you are no more dense than the next, and Reggie's bafflegab is no
more distinct than all that which preceded it - once you discard his
pretension.

Hi, Richard -

I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab". I take it to be
a derogatory term indicating that the posting person believes the monologue
to be unbelievable. Or something like that. Wikipedia has nothing on the
meaning of this word. A search of Dictionary.com produces Gobbledygook which
is no help at all. Another search on Dictionary.com of Gobbledygook results
in "Unclear, wordy jargon." Is this what is meant?

Thanks,
John

John - KD5YI wrote:
I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab".

A Netscape web search turned up 4890 hits.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:13:05 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:

I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab".

Hi John,

It is a term of invention by the greatest practitioner of that art -
Reggie, of course! He introduces nearly every example of it with the
term nestled in his post like a road side flare. Bafflegab is what
was written before you (the second poster to answer) got your say in.

There are similar usage examples of his with "gurus," a term that was
not coined by him, but similarly littered in postings for effect in
his (and imitators') attempts in social climbing. "Gurus" are those
who got to say it first.

So, in the pecking order of it all, "gurus" write "bafflegab" -
unless, of course, you posted first. As a strategic variation on this
theme, there is the inverted-guru-gambit that is something like en
passant. That is, you don't post an answer even if you do manage to
be first, you post how it will be answered wrong by others who you
claim to be gurus.

Reggie has been most influential in these stylistic touches and more
than a few correspondents ape his method. Unfortunately, this also
reveals how quickly novelty descends into cliché; and how wikipedia
trails in social currency.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

John - KD5YI wrote:
I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab".

It is a term of invention by the greatest practitioner of that art -
Reggie, of course!

Sorry, Reg didn't invent the word. It's been around for more than
half a century.

"Bafflegab - This word hit the newspapers and public notice on 19 January
1952, the day after a plaque was presented to its inventor to mark his
creation of this invaluable word. He was Milton A Smith, assistant general
counsel for the US Chamber of Commerce."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:13:05 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:


I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab".


Hi John,

It is a term of invention by the greatest practitioner of that art -
Reggie, of course! He introduces nearly every example of it with the
term nestled in his post like a road side flare. Bafflegab is what
was written before you (the second poster to answer) got your say in.

There are similar usage examples of his with "gurus," a term that was
not coined by him, but similarly littered in postings for effect in
his (and imitators') attempts in social climbing. "Gurus" are those
who got to say it first.

So, in the pecking order of it all, "gurus" write "bafflegab" -
unless, of course, you posted first. As a strategic variation on this
theme, there is the inverted-guru-gambit that is something like en
passant. That is, you don't post an answer even if you do manage to
be first, you post how it will be answered wrong by others who you
claim to be gurus.

Reggie has been most influential in these stylistic touches and more
than a few correspondents ape his method. Unfortunately, this also
reveals how quickly novelty descends into cliché; and how wikipedia
trails in social currency.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Richard -

I must say that the meaning is no clearer to me now. Your explanation makes
no sense to me. I apologize for my lack of understanding.

Thanks for trying to explain nevertheless.

Cheers,
John

John - KD5YI wrote:
I must say that the meaning is no clearer to me now. Your explanation
makes no sense to me. I apologize for my lack of understanding.

Synonym is "Gobblydegook". Does that help?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:42:04 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:

Richard -

I must say that the meaning is no clearer to me now. Your explanation makes
no sense to me. I apologize for my lack of understanding.

Thanks for trying to explain nevertheless.

Cheers,
John

How about "doubletalk"?

That comes pretty close.

Regards,
Danny, K6MHE

Dan Richardson k6mheatadelphia wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:42:04 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:


Richard -

I must say that the meaning is no clearer to me now. Your explanation makes
no sense to me. I apologize for my lack of understanding.

Thanks for trying to explain nevertheless.

Cheers,
John


How about "doubletalk"?

That comes pretty close.

Regards,
Danny, K6MHE


Thanks, Danny.

John