Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... Cecil wrote: This is just one more example of the dumbing down of amateur radio accompanying the dumbing down of the US educational system in general. Unfortunately, it seems to be a trend that cannot be reversed because it is the biased view being pushed by the ARRL and its supporters. Hmmm...not sure I agree that the folks at ARRL are deliberately being dumb (or maybe I just misunderstood you). Seems more unintentional to me. After all, the technical editor of QEX let publish that bizarre article that claimed to prove by math that phasing SSB receivers were not possible. Can''t imagine a political motivation for that though I have to wonder bigtime how that one got by. QEX really really needs for some good peer review. I don't think anyone is trying to be "deliberately being dumb", more like "naturally being dumb" and not knowing it. :-) Reality is that quality of technical material in ham publications is slipping, heading for stuck on stupid. Add cheapening of ham ticket exams, push for mass and no exam recruiting of new hams (a la CB wizards) in effort to boost numbers and few bad apples with it - you get the picture of deteriorating standards. When W8JI had a presentation at Dayton's Antenna Forum and spoke about his "famous - same current along the antenna loading coil", I came to K3LR (forum leader) and N6BV (ARRL Antenna Book editor) and pointed out that perhaps there is an error in W8JI assertions, I got this in private mail from the "guru": "When you pull people aside at Dayton to bitch about me or others or make wild crazy statements it just makes you look worse and worse to the people you are trying most to impress. At Dayton two years ago several people came up and told me your tried to start conversations about me with them, or that you started bitching about me." Sooo, looks like one has to take some articles in ARRL publications with biiiig grain of salt. Goofy stuff gets through, real expert material gets swept under by "know-it-alls" in charge, Goofy is right and Right is not important anymore. "Gurus" beat their drums into the publications and great confusion ensues. As far as SWR, I always tried to avoid it by matching, designing antennas to have impedance of the feedline, and the TX/Amp output matching the feedline impedance. Standing Wave Ratio always implied two waves - forward and reflected and their superposition. Why waste power in "confused" standing waves, when I can make sure that the waves are marching forward towards the antenna and be radiated. Let the waves stand in the antenna, where they belong, doing radiating and not in the lossy feedline. High SWR is not imaginary, it is real, can create excessive voltages, dielectric losses and melt the coax. Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers that did not abort us! God Bless them and thank you! Yuri, da BUm |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Steveo Fight Checklist | CB | |||
Steveo/Race Worrier Fight Schedule so far | CB |