On 26 May 2006 06:38:18 -0700, Cowardly Secwet Woger wrote:
:
: Stagger Lee wrote:
: On 26 May 2006 06:02:16 -0700, Secwet Coward Woger wrote:
: :
: [lies flushed]
:
: The fact is, **** up, he did post it and it wasn't a forgery, you
: ignorant fat ****.

Oh indeed it WAS a forgery. And the forger outed himself in a couple of
different ways: (1) Oris doesn't write in the style used, and (2) Oris
spelled his own name incorrectly.

Thus the forger looked like the fool that he is.

: --
: Stupid Lee (Stagger Lee@ houston-hunks.com) provides yet anothre
: example of his idiocy in
: :
: "That's because transmission line loss and SWR are not directly
: related."

I *LOVE* it when you hand stuff like this to me. You really believe
that the statement above is obviously in error, don't you? In fact,
you are revealing your own profound ignorance.

We covered this topic a long time ago, and even your old DeVry
instructor agreed that I was correct. Basically, you can have zero
loss and infinite VSWR on a line (an ideal twin lead with an open
termination is a simple example), or you can have total loss with a
1:1 VSWR at the transmitter end of the line. A very lossy coaxial
line makes an excellent dummy load, delivering no power to an open
termination, and yet showing a 1:1 VSWR on the transmitting end. You
can also come up with a 1:1 VSWR for a completely lossless, ideally
terminated line, thereby making it quite obvious that line loss and
SWR are not directly related.

[This space reserved for more cut and paste nonsense by the group dummy.]





====================
"Guess again ****-for-brains. Maybe I got back on Stratuswave through
somebody else signing up and just using their account on purpose, just
to **** you ****heads and Stratuswave off. BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" --
AB8MQ in message-id