On Feb 8, 8:40�pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:
As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway?

About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect circle.

* * * * have conflicting figures here from
some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....

Who is that, Leo?

That was you.

No, it wasn't. You are mistaken, Leo.

I have posted the approximate distance from the earth to the moon here
a few times. 250,000 miles, each time.

Ptoooey - did you forget? *

Ptoooey?

On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:
As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway?

About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect circle.

have conflicting figures here from
some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....

Who is that, Leo?

That was you.

No, it wasn't. You are mistaken, Leo.

I'm sorry, Jim - you are incorrect ..... once again!


I have posted the approximate distance from the earth to the moon here
a few times. 250,000 miles, each time.

A bit too approximate, OM - it varies considerably as the distance
changes during the orbit cycle:

Mean distance: 238,712 miles
At apogee: 252,586 miles
At perigee: 221,331 miles

That's a 11% error rate at perigee, and approaching a 5% error rate
at mean distance. Not too far off at apogee, though - perhaps we can
get someone to hold it still for you?

You're definitely well within amateur-level expectations, but not
likely to cut it at the MSEE level, though.....

But you were much closer than you were with your Mars calculations!
One of them went over a 100% error rate.

(just in case you forgot again, you can find that one with Google if
you search the groups for the following subject line: " European
Mars probe to use 80meters to look for Martian water?" - August 7,
2004, to be precise).

You're welcome!


Ptoooey - did you forget?

Ptoooey?

Ptoooey.

No signoff again? Bad form!

73, Leo

(why be 'approximate' when exact is so easy?)

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:

On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:
As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway?

About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect circle.

have conflicting figures here from
some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....

Who is that, Leo?

That was you.

No, it wasn't. You are mistaken, Leo.

I'm sorry, Jim - you are incorrect ..... once again!


I have posted the approximate distance from the earth to the moon here
a few times. 250,000 miles, each time.

A bit too approximate, OM - it varies considerably as the distance
changes during the orbit cycle:

Mean distance: 238,712 miles
At apogee: 252,586 miles
At perigee: 221,331 miles

That's a 11% error rate at perigee, and approaching a 5% error rate
at mean distance. Not too far off at apogee, though - perhaps we can
get someone to hold it still for you?

You're definitely well within amateur-level expectations, but not
likely to cut it at the MSEE level, though.....

But you were much closer than you were with your Mars calculations!
One of them went over a 100% error rate.

(just in case you forgot again, you can find that one with Google if
you search the groups for the following subject line: " European
Mars probe to use 80meters to look for Martian water?" - August 7,
2004, to be precise).

You're welcome!


Ptoooey - did you forget?

Ptoooey?

Ptoooey.

No signoff again? Bad form!

73, Leo

(why be 'approximate' when exact is so easy?)

No reply? Worse form....

(how can someone argue vehemently an error of only 0.04% in one
thread, and be as much as 11 percent out in this one - and over 100
percent in another?? That just ain't logical!!)

35, Leo

On Feb 13, 2:13�pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:

(why be 'approximate' when exact is so easy?)

No reply? *Worse form.... *

(how can someone argue vehemently an error of only 0.04% in one
thread, and be as much as 11 percent out in this one *- and over 100
percent in another?? *That just ain't logical!!)

35, Leo

It ain't easy, Leo, but he surrrre tries awful hard... :-)

LA

On Feb 13, 5:13�pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:
As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway?

About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect circle.

* * have conflicting figures here from
some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....

Who is that, Leo?

That was you.

No, it wasn't. You are mistaken, Leo.

I'm sorry, Jim - you are incorrect ..... once again!

Nope. The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles.

I have posted the approximate distance from the earth to the moon here
a few times. 250,000 miles, each time.

A bit too approximate, OM

In your opinion.

- it varies considerably as the distance
changes during the orbit cycle:

As I noted when I wrote:

"About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect
circle."

Mean distance: 238,712 miles
At apogee: 252,586 miles
At perigee: 221,331 miles

That's a 11% error rate at perigee, and approaching a 5% error rate
at mean distance.

Nope.

Not an "error rate".

The figure 250,000 miles is accurate to within 11.5%.
(approximately) at perigee, using your figures.

Twice in each orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000
miles, btw.

*Not too far off at apogee, though - perhaps we can
get someone to hold it still for you? *


If 250,000 miles isn't accurate enough for you, then you must fault
your buddy Len too. Because he stated the distance as a quarter
million miles....

But you were much closer than you were with your Mars calculations!
One of them went over a 100% error rate.

(just in case you forgot again, you can find that one with Google if
you search the groups for the following subject line: " European
Mars probe to use 80meters to look for Martian water?" - August 7,
2004, to be precise).

Yup, I made an error on the Earth-to-Mars distance. So what? The error
was corrected.

Did I call anyone names for pointing out m,y mistake? Did I make fun
of their education?

You're welcome!

Ptoooey - did you forget?

Ptoooey?

Ptoooey.

No signoff again? *Bad form!

73, Leo

(why be 'approximate' when exact is so easy?)

No reply? *Worse form.... *

Why should I reply to someone who is anonymous?

(how can someone argue vehemently an error of only 0.04% in one
thread, and be as much as 11 percent out in this
one *- and over 100
percent in another?? *That just ain't logical!!)

Who is arguing over an error of 0.04%, Leo?
Certainly not me.

Len claimed:

"that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined"

But he was wrong. 100% mistaken.

Even if we allow the inclusion of Technician Pluses in the total, they
do not exceed the number of all other US license classes combined. The
difference is more than 0.5%, not 0.04%.

But the percentage difference doesn't matter. Len did not specify
"approximately" or cite any numbers in his claim

"that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined"

All he did was make the claim, which is either true or false. Only two
possible states - true or false - not a question of approximations or
percentage of accuracy.

I showed Len's claim to be false - using the numbers Len provided!
Those numbers are exact, not approximations.

In short:

The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles. Both Len
and I agree on that.

Twice per orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000 miles.

but

The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.


Jim, N2EY

On Feb 13, 4:43?pm, wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:

The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles. Both Len
and I agree on that.

YOU agree with ME? Mais non! Impossi-blee!

Heavens, I ALWAYS have those "factual errors!" [that's what
you keep saying]

Twice per orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000 miles.

Wow! Ain't you the astro-fizzizist!

And a 12-hour clock shows EXACTLY the same time every
day! Wow! A truly wonderful factoid! NOT. :-)

The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

At an average rate of 36/day increase through the no-code
Tech entry versus an average 78/day DECREASE through
expirations, just give it a little time, oh ****y pedantic
one. :-)

You really and honestly "think" that there will be ANY
significant "reduction" of the no-code-test Techs by
23 February 2007? If you do, then you are a hopeless
romantic of days long gone by.

So, how many no-code-test Techs were there in 1990,
just 17 years ago? Any? And they caused the Techs
to increase to a tiny fraction short of "exactly" 50% of
ALL licensees? In just a dozen-plus years? Wow,
you've really got your head in the sand! (or up your
A-soul or someone else's...)

And you want to argue and argue and argue and ball
your fists up and cry about no-code-test Techs "NOT"
of any consequence? Go right ahead...you've been
trying to "prove" that for years. That's your fantasy.

Why don't you get OFF your computer and ON your
Elecraft and "work DX on HF with CW" like a good
little hamme of olde tymes?

Wurst regards lil weenie,
LA

On Feb 13, 9:12�pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 13, 4:43?pm, wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:
The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles. Both Len
and I agree on that.

* *YOU agree with ME?

Sometimes.

* *Heavens, I ALWAYS have those "factual errors!" *[that's what
* *you keep saying]

You're wrong about that, Len.

You make a considerable number of factual errors,
but sometimes you do get something right. Like the approximate
distance from the earth to the moon.

Twice per orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000 miles.

* *Wow! *Ain't you the astro-fizzizist!

* *And a 12-hour clock shows EXACTLY the same time every
* *day! *Wow! *A truly wonderful factoid! *NOT. * :-)

Is it true or not?

The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

* *At an average rate of 36/day increase through the no-code
* *Tech entry versus an average 78/day DECREASE through
* *expirations, *just give it a little time,

Yet the total percentage of Technicians and Tech Pluses is less now
than it was 7 years ago.

* *You really and honestly "think" that there will be ANY
* *significant "reduction" of the no-code-test Techs by
* *23 February 2007?

Doesn't have to be.

* *So, how many no-code-test Techs were there in 1990,
* *just 17 years ago? *Any?

Nope - but there were Technicians then. They were
all code-tested.

Today some Technicians are code tested and some
are not.

*And they caused the Techs
* *to increase to a tiny fraction short of "exactly" 50% of
* *ALL licensees? *

Nope.

In just a dozen-plus years? *Wow,
* *you've really got your head in the sand! *(or up your
* *A-soul or someone else's...)

You are mistaken, Len.

* *And you want to argue and argue and argue and ball
* *your fists up and cry about no-code-test Techs "NOT"
* *of any consequence? *

Not me, Len. You are the one who is upset and out of control.

The fact is that the number of Techs is not greater than that of all
other license classes combined.

Go right ahead...you've been
* *trying to "prove" that for years. *That's your fantasy.

The numbers tell the story, Len. You made a claim
that turned out to be false. Now you're angry because
I pointed it out.

Too bad.

--

Some have claimed that the Morse Code test has been a "barrier" to
growth and upgrading in amateur radio.

If that is true, we may see large numbers of upgrades after the rules
change on Feb 23.

In fact, the number of Technicians (including Tech Pluses) may
actually decrease, just as they did after the restructuring of April
2000.

"ARS License Numbers" will tell the tale.

* *Why don't you get OFF your computer

Are you telling me to shut up, Len?

Sure seems like it.
Can't you tolerate a different opinion?
Can't you tolerate being told you made a mistake?


and ON your*Elecraft

How do you know I'm not? The K2 is just one of my
rigs, btw.

One thing is pretty certain: I don't think anyone will encounter *you*
on the amateur bands, Len.

And pretty soon, not on rrap, either.

Jim, N2EY

On Feb 13, 6:47?pm, wrote:
On Feb 13, 9:12?pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 13, 4:43?pm, wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:
The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles. Both Len
and I agree on that.

? ?YOU agree with ME?

Sometimes.

? ?Heavens, I ALWAYS have those "factual errors!" ?[that's what
? ?you keep saying]

You're wrong about that, Len.

You are always saying that... :-)

Betcha can't get through another long, windy post of
yours without saying it... :-)

You make a considerable number of factual errors,
but sometimes you do get something right. Like the approximate
distance from the earth to the moon.

Thank you MISTAH NASA! :-)

You, of course, have MEASURED it precisely, yes? :-)


You are mistaken, Len.

Tsk, you just can't stop saying that, can you? :-)

Not me, Len. You are the one who is upset and out of control.

Oil your chains, Cranky. Every time I pull them they still
make all that noise! :-)

Are you telling me to shut up, Len?

It WOULD be good for you to take a rest now and then... :-)


How do you know I'm not? The K2 is just one of my
rigs, btw.

You have a "btw" rig? I've not heard of that brand/model.
Please describe it for us. Is it top of the line like a BMW?
Is it made in Bavaria?


One thing is pretty certain: I don't think anyone will encounter *you*
on the amateur bands, Len.

How are you so "certain," Cranky? :-)


And pretty soon, not on rrap, either.

Really? Have you thought of my STAYING here? :-)

Are you going to shut me up, big tuff guy? :-)

Why are you against free speech?

Why do you ALWAYS have to shut up your opposition?

You really can't stand to have anyone oppose you, can
you? It would spoil the image of yourself you have.

Try plain speaking WITHOUT the constant QUESTIONS.

Do you secretly WANT to be some kind of "interrogator?"

Have you thought of a job at Camp Delta at Guantanamo?
Learn some Arabic and you could be a good interrogator.
Show those terrorists who's BOSS! :-)

Yank, yank, push, push, oh what a relief it is...! :-)

LA

On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:
As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway?

About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect circle.

have conflicting figures here from
some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....

Who is that, Leo?

That was you.

No, it wasn't. You are mistaken, Leo.

I'm sorry, Jim - you are incorrect ..... once again!

Nope. The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles.

By your 'accuracy' scale. (LOL!))

238,000 is a much more accurate approximation at apogee and perigee -
and thus, on average, in general.


I have posted the approximate distance from the earth to the moon here
a few times. 250,000 miles, each time.

A bit too approximate, OM

In your opinion.

- it varies considerably as the distance
changes during the orbit cycle:

As I noted when I wrote:

"About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect
circle."

Mean distance: 238,712 miles
At apogee: 252,586 miles
At perigee: 221,331 miles

That's a 11% error rate at perigee, and approaching a 5% error rate
at mean distance.

Nope.

Not an "error rate".

I'm guessing that you aren't employed by NASA.....


The figure 250,000 miles is accurate to within 11.5%.
(approximately) at perigee, using your figures.

Twice in each orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000
miles, btw.

Twice each day, a stopped watch is accurate, Jim......just like this
miscalculation - er, approximation....whatever you say


ot too far off at apogee, though - perhaps we can
get someone to hold it still for you?


If 250,000 miles isn't accurate enough for you, then you must fault
your buddy Len too. Because he stated the distance as a quarter
million miles....

Hiding behind Len now, are we....?

Never thought I'd see the day!

(him too, I'd reckon.....)


But you were much closer than you were with your Mars calculations!
One of them went over a 100% error rate.

(just in case you forgot again, you can find that one with Google if
you search the groups for the following subject line: " European
Mars probe to use 80meters to look for Martian water?" - August 7,
2004, to be precise).

Yup, I made an error on the Earth-to-Mars distance. So what? The error
was corrected.

By Len, actually. Not by you!

(you left it sit until 2 days later (August 9th), after several posts
pointing it out.......and even then, you tried to obscure it with a
new set of calcs - quite redundant, in fact, as the correct numbers
were already supplied in the posts immediately following the error.

That was quite odd.


Did I call anyone names for pointing out m,y mistake?

Not that I recall. I don't think you even pointed out your mistake -
until it had already been done.

Did I make fun of their education?

....now that would have been funny!


You're welcome!

Ptoooey - did you forget?

Ptoooey?

Ptoooey.

Ptoooey.


No signoff again?
ad form!

73, Leo

(why be 'approximate' when exact is so easy?)

No reply? orse form....

Why should I reply to someone who is anonymous?

Just thinking of that now?

Anonymous' means 'Having an unknown or unacknowledged name'. Mine's
Leo! (duh!)

You yourself have 'acknowledged' it many times in past correspondence
with me, over the past three years.

You forgot, huh? I understand.


(how can someone argue vehemently an error of only 0.04% in one
thread, and be as much as 11 percent out in this
one - and over 100
percent in another?? hat just ain't logical!!)

Who is arguing over an error of 0.04%, Leo?
Certainly not me.

No?

....Gee, wasn't that you who was arguing with Len that 49.46% rounds up
to 50%, and not 49%?

That's a difference (error) of 0.04%, isn't it?

Um....yes, it is!

Wrong Again, Jim! (ouch!)


Len claimed:

"that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined"

But he was wrong. 100% mistaken.

That puts you in good company, Jim - you have been a member of the
100%er's club too!

Actually, Len was only off a few fractions of a percent, by your own -
ahem - calculations. You, however, were definitely in the 100%-plus
error category. Galactically speaking, of course.


Even if we allow the inclusion of Technician Pluses in the total, they
do not exceed the number of all other US license classes combined. The
difference is more than 0.5%, not 0.04%.

-um- that wasn't the 0.04% error thingie, Jim....please try to follow
along!


But the percentage difference doesn't matter. Len did not specify
"approximately" or cite any numbers in his claim

He didn't specify approximately, but he cited many, many numbers in
his claim!

In fact, his claim was based on numbers.....


"that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined"

All he did was make the claim, which is either true or false. Only two
possible states - true or false - not a question of approximations or
percentage of accuracy.

I showed Len's claim to be false - using the numbers Len provided!
Those numbers are exact, not approximations.

In short:

The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles. Both Len
and I agree on that.

Too approximate. You're either precise or approximate - you can't
have it both ways!


Twice per orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000 miles.

Stopped watch theory. See above.


but

The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

Perhaps! Perhaps not.



Jim, N2EY


73, Leo

On Feb 13, 7:15�pm, Leo wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:


I'm guessing that you aren't employed by NASA..... *

Cranky NEVER worked for the US government, NEVER
served in the US military. But...he IS "authority" on
all things involved with them... :-)


Twice in each orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000
miles, btw.

Twice each day, a stopped watch is accurate, Jim......just like this
miscalculation - er, approximation....whatever you say


If 250,000 miles isn't accurate enough for you, then you must fault
your buddy Len too. Because he stated the distance as a quarter
million miles....

Hiding behind Len now, are we....?

Never thought I'd see the day! *

(him too, I'd reckon.....)

TRUE! Maybe it's because tomorrow (the 14th) is Valentine's
Day and he has a crush on me? :-( [horrors!]


Yup, I made an error on the Earth-to-Mars distance. So what? The error
was corrected.

By Len, actually. * Not by you!

(you left it sit until 2 days later (August 9th), after several posts
pointing it out.......and even then, you tried to obscure it with a
new set of calcs - quite redundant, in fact, as the correct numbers
were already supplied in the posts immediately following the error.

That was quite odd.

I thought it quite SOP (Standard Operating Practice) of him.


Did I make fun of their education?

...now that would have been funny! *

Ho, ho!


Why should I reply to someone who is anonymous?

Just thinking of that now? *

Anonymous' means 'Having an unknown or unacknowledged name'. *Mine's
Leo! *(duh!)

You yourself have 'acknowledged' it many times in past correspondence
with me, over the past three years. *

You forgot, huh? *I understand.

Tsk, one of the first signs of dreaded Alzheimer's...


But he was wrong. 100% mistaken.

That puts you in good company, Jim - *you have been a member of the
100%er's club too!

Cranky? He is NEVER wrong, mistaken, in error, or anything
else...by his own emission.


Actually, Len was only off a few fractions of a percent, by your own -
ahem - calculations. *You, however, were definitely in the 100%-plus
error category. *Galactically speaking, of course.

I wonder on how many spacecraft this double-degreed
wonderman has worked? "NASA-aly" speaking of
course.

Mental picture of Cranky Spanky trying to "correct" the
guys at JPL, especially their QC folks. :-)


But the percentage difference doesn't matter. Len did not specify
"approximately" or cite any numbers in his claim

He didn't specify approximately, but he cited many, many numbers in
his claim!

In fact, his claim was based on numbers..... *

Hmmm...my only "claim" is on my southern house deed.
All numbers again. Surveyor did them. Same with the
Northern House but in a different house, different country
different state.


The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles. Both Len
and I agree on that.

Too approximate. *You're either precise or approximate - you can't
have it both ways!

He wants to have his cake and eat anyone who says he can't!


Twice per orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000 miles.

Stopped watch theory. *See above.

Cranky ought to apply for a job at NIST. He's got an Allan
Variance no one would believe!

Note: You can lead a horologist to water but you can't
make him prostitute himself...


The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

Perhaps! *Perhaps not.

No two ways there. If Cranky conceived it, it will
happen. In his mind at least.

Why is the word "abbreviation" so long?

And remember, today is the day your all worried about
yesterday...

LA