On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:00:56 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Paul,

I could have been even richer if I'd charged for all those computer
programs. But I have been much happier just by producing them instead of
setting up a waste-of-my-time sales and marketing organisation. But it's a
fact I never realised at the outset how popular they would become. I was
under the impression I was a late-comer to the field. But it seems I was
not. I was perhaps the originator of this type of program.

And I am confiding in you, even now, only because I am half-way down a
bottle of Californian medium-sweet white. Must keep international relations
in good order.

Well you're doin' a great job, Reg. Keep it up! What's the next
program you've got in mind to write? And which language to you
generally use for this purpose?
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

Paul wrote -
Well you're doin' a great job, Reg. Keep it up! What's the next
program you've got in mind to write? And which language to you
generally use for this purpose?

================================

Paul, what makes you think I do a great job? Nobody ever tells me. It's not
just idle curiosity. I'm not fishing. Feedback needed.

I always have several programs on the go at any point in time. Some have
lasted, on and off, for years. But little to do with complexity. More to
do with reliability and freedom from bugs.

I have an unfinished program which calculates the L and C values of a
parallel tuned circuit. It can be connected in an antenna wire to resonate
it to two frequencies. It is not a trap. The circuit's resonant frequency
doesn't matter very much. But on the low side of resonance it behaves as an
inductive loading coil and on the high side it behaves as a capacitance
load. The antenna becomes resonant at one frequency below the wire's natural
frequency, and at another frequency above the wire's natural frequency.

Unlike use of a trap, at both frequencies the wire radiates over the whole
of its length. Furthermore, at its lower resonant frequency, the wire is
shorter than a 1/4-wavelength.

I do not claim to have invented the arrangement. It has been previously
discussed on a newsgroup. But I doubt if the L and C values have been
explicitly calculated before.

I hesitate at making the program available to all and sundry for ever more,
because I am unable to erect an actual antenna to prove the calculations
correct. Although I am reasonably confident they are correct.

I use Pascal source code. Its an old language and you can't teach an old dog
new tricks. But programming languages have settled down. There's little
further room for improvement. I like Pascal because it is disciplined and
structured. There's no such thing as a "Go-to" command as with BASIC. The
compiler won't allow you to make logical mistakes. The quality of a program,
the finished working product, doesn't have much to do with the language
used. Chinese is just as good as English.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:42:56 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Paul wrote -
Well you're doin' a great job, Reg. Keep it up! What's the next
program you've got in mind to write? And which language to you
generally use for this purpose?

================================

Paul, what makes you think I do a great job? Nobody ever tells me. It's not
just idle curiosity. I'm not fishing. Feedback needed.

You make a worthwhile overall net contribution to the hobby, Reg. Your
programs save untold people an awful lot of time and f*cking about
with the kind of calculations that typically invite careless errors
and torn-out hair. I regularly visit your site and grab what I can!
Anyone with any sense would!
Will that suffice? ;-)
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

"Paul Burridge" wrote -
I regularly visit your site and grab what I can!
Anyone with any sense would!
Will that suffice? ;-)

===========================

Well, it will have to do. Thanks Paul!

For the last one or two years of my varied career I was listed in the firm's
phone directory as "Chief Standards Engineer". I had under some sort of
control the Quality Managers of 3 factories and laboratories.

Strictly speaking, "Quality" is defined as the ability to conform to
specified requirements. It can be statistically measured as can anybody's
performance.

But in my case I would prefer the more lax and broader definition of Quality
: The ability to serve the intended purpose.

"Reliability" is defined as Quality versus Time.

My programs, produced in retirement for a variety of reasons and purposes,
have now been available to the 'rabble' for 5 or 6 years. ;o)

Here I go again - pouring out my heart with the aid of a bottle of Valencia
red. It's supposed to be good for the arteries. It didn't do Franco any
harm. But a pity about Guenica as depicted by Pablo Picasso. He should
have done Nagosaki (which I witnessed from the air) and Hiroshima (which I
visited on foot). Unfortunately my camera had a pin-hole in the bellows but
the experience, nevertheless, profoundly influenced, you could say biassed,
my early education.
---
Reg, G4FGQ

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...

But in my case I would prefer the more lax and broader definition of
Quality
: The ability to serve the intended purpose.

Well done Reg. I agree that definition fits in nicely with my (adopted)
expression which is "Fitness for use".
Terry.
PS. As an ex-Brit one of my most interesting and ironic experiences (around
1959) was trying to explain to a USAF Tech. Sgt. neighbour, of Mexican
background, the significance of the Boston Tea Party!
Sort of along the lines of, "Well actually old boy we lost that one; the US
Colonies went their own way to become the USA! Got that Carlos?"
IIRC his name was Carlos Valencia and he was married to a girl from around
New England. He fixed aircraft and I fixed his TV/Radio etc. Nice chap.