eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Rational Radio

Eric P. Nichols (KL7AJ) on February 12, 2013
View comments about this article!

One of my mentors, an elder physicist in the UCLA Plasma lab said something that I will never forget:

"A minute of measurement trumps a decade of debate every time."

Nowhere is this more applicable than in Amateur Radio discussions, particularly, but not limited to, transmission line theory. It seems that the same errors keep getting "rejuvenated" year after year after year after year after year.

The reason this happens is that with a very few exceptions, hams would rather flap their gums in ignorance than take a few simple measurements and prove the issue once and for all.

Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. Walter Maxwell, W2DU was compelled to wrote "Another Look at Reflections" in the early 1970s in response to the vast amount of misinformation about transmission lines. Likewise, twenty years before that, Byron Goodman, W1DX just as eloquently covered the subject in his May 1956 QST article, "My Feedline Tunes My Antenna."

Both of these authors strongly advised making actual measurements to confirm their assertions.

The problem is, thinking rationally about scientific matters takes some actual WORK. It takes some mental and sometimes physical discipline. Error takes on a life of its own, while truth always has to be carefully nurtured. It's unfortunate that it has to be this way, but nothing seems to have changed one iota since Byron Goodman's seminal article.

Perhaps continually re-propagating error gives hams something to talk about on the air...or on the internet. I'd prefer to think that ham radio is a scientific hobby and that we can actually impart some KNOWLEDGE from time to time.

If we are to "advance the radio art" as our FCC charter mandates, we need to get beyond the folklore stage...as entertaining as it may be. The fact is there ARE genuine, objective answers to every radio principle we might encounter. As radio amateurs, we need to lead the way in scientific, rational investigation and understanding of the tools of our trade.

The information is out there...the CORRECT information. Grand Masters like W1DX and W2DU did their jobs well...in fact, flawlessly. Every ham needs to read such works before offering their "advice." Opinions are easy to come by, knowledge takes craftsmanship.

73!

Eric

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Measure It! Rational Radio  
by KQ6XA on February 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Good Article!

I wholeheartedly agree.

My favorite application of this principle is with antennas.

There was so much opinionated debate on HFpack forum about portable/pedestrian antennas, that it led to several antenna measurement events called the "HFpack Pedestrian Antenna Shootout".

http://hfpack.com/antennas/
http://hfpack.com/antennas/shootoutvertical2002.html

After the shootouts, a lot of opinions were replaced with factual data, and it led to better choices and improvements in equipment.
 
RE: Measure It! Rational Radio  
by KE6SLS on February 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!

will stated om! I mentor many hams here. One of my keywords I use is "matchbox" instead of "tuner".

KQ6XA: thank you for posting your URL. Very interesting and I just bookmarked it!

73

 
Rational Radio  
by WB6PWD on February 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Tuner? Matchbox? I feed my antennas with a thousand feet of rg58 and never have transmitter fold back from my ft817.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by G3LBS on February 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
This has arisen because of the sloppy language and research used by sociologists. Most of them can't do Math so they try to rule it out in sloppy qualitative research. They have even ruled out History and Geography in the schools, because most of them can't read a map.
Eddington said 'Anything that can be measured is infinitely more valuable'.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by AA4PB on February 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
You've got to be careful with measurements too. An invalid measurement can yield invalid data that is used to support an invalid hypothesis.
 
Rational Radio  
by N8WL on February 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Excellent point, Eric! I went to look up the W1DX article online, and it's in the MARCH, 1956 QST, (p.49) not the May issue. Thanks for the reference.

73,

Steve N8WL
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by W8ATA on February 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks Eric. Your article is a good reminder and says a lot in a few words. There still exists a lot of non-peer reviewed folklore out there. We all are guaranteed the right to our own opinions but not to make up our own facts.

73, Russ (hi Steve, N8WL)
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by G3LBS on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Great article Eric and a timely warning that the sociologists could take over ham radio if we are not careful.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by G8JGO on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"This has arisen because of the sloppy language and research used by sociologists. Most of them can't do Math so they try to rule it out in sloppy qualitative research. They have even ruled out History and Geography in the schools, because most of them can't read a map."

Since when do sociologists do feedline research? A simple Google search will tell you that statistics are a part of sociological research to underpin qualitative work where applicable.

History and Geography teaching in the UK seems to have been a victim of the "oooh look, soft sciences" brigade attaching stigma to these subjects so the take up has been in decline for quite a long time. The knock on effect is that the subjects have very few specialists in the field who take up teaching at the primary and secondary level.

BTW. It's "Maths" from a UK cultural perspective - but hey! that is just sloppy language right? (With due deference to our US cousins here) :-)

Anyway, on topic - yes I agree with the OP that we need to keep our methodologies as robust as possible. Not every one of us have the Mathematical rigour to describe and understand the underlying principles, which is why I think a more descriptive interpretation arises. This may - and this is just a wild guess on my part - led to the propagation of misunderstanding.

Kind Regards.
 
Rational Radio  
by K7RBW on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
If only it were as easy as taking out your tape measure and confirming the measurement. When it is, by all means, do it! However, it usually isn't that easy.

First you need to ask a question that can be answered with a measurement, which sounds easy until you actually try do to it with any degree of precision. For example, "What's the SWR of this antenna installation with this radio on this frequency?" is pretty easy to measure. "What's the best antenna?" isn't.

Then you need to set up the experiment such that you are actually testing and measuring what you want to observe. Even if you are asking a measurable question, your test procedure and setup must be such that other variables can be identified and controlled.

Finally, you need to conduct the experiment so that you get reliable measurements. With many things this is difficult, with radio waves, even more so. Add in antennas and atmosphere and it gets extremely difficult.

After all that, how generalizable are your findings? Can you say that "every other radio/antenna" will behave the same way or is your test just valid for your unique configuration (in which case, the only person for whom the results will matter is you). This is a challenge in the most carefully designed experiments but even harder when you take into account the variations of radio wave propagation, atmospheric influences, etc.

In the end, this is a lot of work for even professional scientists and engineers. It'd be nice if amateur radio hobbyists could conduct serious scientific research (and some do, which is great!). At the same time, we need to remember that for the vast majority it's just a hobby and a pastime so expecting a vast body of scientific research to come from it might be misplaced.
 
Rational Radio  
by K1CJS on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Great article! As many of my friends and I say, common sense should now be called UN-common sense, because not too many people these days use it. We're ALL guilty of playing the guessing game or taking someone elses word as gospel at one time or another.

Reminds me of yet another saying that's as true today--maybe more so today than before: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
 
Practical Radio Applications  
by AI2IA on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Eric says this, "The fact is there ARE genuine, objective answers to every radio principle we might encounter."

Perhaps, but most hams most of the time are interested in getting on the air, not strict conformance with radio principles or precise measurements. Nor do many hams, working for a living, have the time or credentials to become involved at the engineering or scientific level. Of course many do, and this is most commendable, but for the most part hams are practical, at best, applied science folks.

Rules of thumb will get you up and running quite well. Practical methods will permit you to tweak circuits and antenna dimensions and configurations. Long established maintenance techniques lend themselves quite nicely to construction methods, and component substitution can often be quite forgiving in regard to component values.

Practical hams are the backbone of our endeavor, while engineering and scientific minded hams are a welcome exception. Yet everyone can have fun, contribute to community service through emcomm or weather reporting, be helpful elmers, and volunteer examiners. There is a place for everyone, and certainly engineering and scientific precision does not have to be the norm, even in well conducted discussions.
 
Einstein's Opinion  
by KA4KOE on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I still subscribe to Albert Einstein's description of how radio communications work.....

"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat."

Works for me every time.

Philip "FEELEEP"
KA4KOE
 
RE: Einstein's Opinion  
by WA8MEA on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
>>"A minute of measurement trumps a decade of debate every time."<<
--------------------------------------------
I can top that!

"Measure twice; cut once."

73, Bill - WA8MEA
http://HamRadioFun.com
"Sometimes you are the bug - sometimes you are the windshield"
 
RE: Einstein's Opinion  
by WA8MEA on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Here's a fun experiment!

If you have an 80 meter dipole, check your antenna on a nice, dry summer afternoon. Mark down the frequency and the VSWR of that particular frequency.

Now wait for an afternoon thundershower some day. A real good soaker.

After the thundershower....go measure the VSWR on that same frequency that you did on the sunny day.

It ain't the same....is it?

I like to call these anomolies; "variables." Science has MANY variables. Can you think of another?

73, Bill - WA8MEA
http://HamRadioFun.com
"Sometimes you are the bug - sometimes you are the windshield"
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by KL7AJ on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
You're right....thanks for the correction. :)
 
RE: Practical Radio Applications  
by KL7AJ on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I have no problem with rules of thumb. Rules of error are something else entirely. :)

Eric
 
Rational Radio  
by KB3HG on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Eric,
Your point is well taken. Explanations are like opinions wide and varied. The art of communication, to convey proper information is dependent on the ability of the speaker to communicate at the level of the audience they are communicating with. That being said "Effective Communications". You have the gift for it.

Tom Kb3hg
 
RE: Einstein's Opinion  
by WA8MEA on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Here's another good one, Eric:

"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level....and beat you with experience." Samual Clemens (a.k.a. Mark Twain)

73, Bill - WA8MEA
"The only time a woman can really succeed in changing a man is when he is a baby"
 
RE: Einstein's Opinion  
by WA8MEA on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I just remembered I had this one stuck in one of my files....

“All hobbies suck. But if you keep at it, you might find that in the end, you’ve managed to kill some precious time.”

Homer Simpson



73, Bill - WA8MEA
"My father was stupid. He worked in a bank, and they caught him stealing pens!" - Rodney Dangerfield
 
RE: Einstein's Opinion  
by K9MHZ on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Welcome back, Eric....always great reading your work.

I think one component of perpetuating radio myths is cold, hard cash. How on earth that so much beautifully designed and manufactured modern gear is offered for sale right next to Isotron antennas is completely beyond me. As I was paying for several items at the ham dealer store, one customer with an Extra Class call was locked up over what impedance ratio to buy in a BALUN for his dipole fed with coax. Just brazen laziness.

Eric nailed it....it takes WORK.

 
Rational Radio  
by K8QV on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Logic, reason and science are not the long suit for most people. Some people still don't accept evolution, so why would they accept proofs from the likes of Maxwell? No, too many people stubbornly hang on to old superstitions and religions long after the few thinkers we do have proved otherwise. Some hams even today still swear that you can't make any decent contacts unless you attain a perfect SWR and they put all their efforts into achieving that elusive goal. Facts mean little to a lot of people, hams included.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by WA8MEA on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I've got one for that, too!

More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defense. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God? C.S. Lewis - The Oxford Socratic Club (1944)

73, Bill
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by KL7AJ on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Bill:

C.S. Lewis is probably my favorite author. Interestingly enough, most of the very first proponents of the scientific method were creationists....Isaac Newton, Sir Francic Bacon, Maxwell, Michael Faraday, etc.

Evolution is hard to prove one way or another, because biology TAKES so long. In the particle chamber, things happen fast and definitively. This is why far more physicists believe in intelligent design than biologists.

Eric
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by K8QV on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Evolution is easily tested. Show me fossil remains of a cat or dog in a pre-Cambrian layer of rock. Show me any lifeform on Earth that does not share half of its DNA with single-celled yeast. This would convince any rational person that evolution is wrong. The recent finds of Tiktaalik and human chromosome number 2 are very powerful tests of evolution and both confirmed evolution.

But we digress......too frequently people, hams included, don't like to have their preconceived notions challenged by facts.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by PA3GOS on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Some appropriate proverbs that come to mind...

To measure is to know if you know what you measure.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think.

When the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.


These were picked up from different sources and seem to be very old. Though old, they still hold the truth.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by KL7AJ on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
QV:

The very use of the word "pre-Cambrian" makes an assumption about the existence of geologic ages....of any kind. Since nobody has been able to create a geologic age under controlled conditions, this presents an untenable bias right from the beginning.

The fact that petrified wood was created in Spirit Lake within WEEKS of the eruption of Mt. St. Helen puts some serious doubts on the length of geologic ages...at the very least it puts the burden of proof upon the religion of evolution.

Eric
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by WA8MEA on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Eric said:

This is why far more physicists believe in intelligent design than biologists.
--------------------------------------------
Agreed. As someone interested in quantum physics and string theory, I concur.

The simple fact is that the formulas for many scientific equations are so intertwined, I cannot fathom them simply happening by "accident." A couple of simple examples: Antenna length coincides with wavelength coincides with frequency. Also, the higher the frequency, the shorter the antenna.

The physicist wonders how the Theory of Evolution could ever "evolve" into such proportionately mathematical "events", even at the basic level; as exampled above.

73, Bill


 
RE: Rational Radio  
by WA8MEA on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
The fact that petrified wood was created in Spirit Lake within WEEKS of the eruption of Mt. St. Helen puts some serious doubts on the length of geologic ages...at the very least it puts the burden of proof upon the religion of evolution.
--------------------------------------
I once was taught and believed, like so many others, that the rock layers in the Grand Canyon represented stages over magnitudes of time.

Then came along "Little Grand Canyon" in Georgia.

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/11723


73, Bill
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by KL7AJ on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Bill:

The Universe just got a lot MORE complicated (and statistically unlikely!) with the recent discovery of photon entanglement....the ability of a photon to communicate its current state to another photon...but not EVERY other photon. The implications of this are staggering...pointing to the likelihood that every subatomic particle in the universe has a unique identity...not comprised of interchangeable parts as the standard model has suggested for about a century.

If "universal uniqueness" is eventually proven (I have no doubt that it will be), the universe will be HUNDREDS OF ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more complicated than even "standard" Biblical creationists have argued!

Stay tuned!

Eric
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by K8QV on February 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!

< I cannot fathom them simply happening by "accident." >


Sigh. It's not about any "accidents" at all. Perhaps some facts...never mind.

I think I can rest my case now. Not trying to drag anyone into the 21st Century here. Just pointing out how people are inclined to hold onto the first things they were taught, rightly or wrongly.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by WA8MEA on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Actually, Chris, the first thing I was taught was evolution; in grade school. My eyes started to open thanks to a PUBLIC high school biology teacher who refused to teach evolution. (He would have been fired in today's world!) He said evolution was not based on fact and he, himself, believed in creation. He did invite the class to privately read the textbook sections on evolution, if we so desired.

C.S. Lewis also didn't hold onto the things he was first taught. He, too, was into the religion of atheism. He finally realized, via common sense, that the universe simply could not happen itself into existence.

73, Bill
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by G0EVA on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
MATHEMATICS - If you're going to be pedantic - get it right; first time; every time. HI.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by N3OX on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
K7RBW writes:

" "What's the SWR of this antenna installation with this radio on this frequency?" is pretty easy to measure. "What's the best antenna?" isn't."

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

"What's the best antenna" isn't even a question hams should be asking without a huge additional list of constraints and conditions! Of course you can't measure it; you haven't even defined "best."

If you want to know which of two antennas have higher field strength, or some other well-defined quantitative thing, you're right, it's not as simple as taking out your tape measure but sometimes it's easier than people think. There's a lot you can do with your radio and a voltmeter, for example:

http://n3ox.net/projects/n3oxflex/
http://n3ox.net/tech/coilQ/

It takes care, preparation, and understanding of the limitations of the setup. It takes time to make the measurements. But sometimes it seems like hams will dismiss the idea that they COULD do measurements because they can't afford expensive test equipment or whatever.

This is just a hobby, and I think in a lot of situations, it's just not FUN to measure things, and that's okay.

There's only a PROBLEM when other people are trying to learn and every single antenna project they find says "this antenna is better..." without much support of mathematics or reproducible evidence from well-defined measurements.

And the problem of poor measurement is better solved on the antenna learners' end. If someone says they tested and "improved" an antenna, but they don't actually give you enough information about the arrangement of antennas, the test setup, and so on to reproduce the test, then their "conclusions" simply aren't very strong. They *might* be right, but they can't demonstrate it.

A lot of people get very confused when they try to learn about antennas in a word-of-mouth way, picking some older and more experienced hams as authority figures. There's a mix of good and bad information, physics and folklore, measurements and noise.

People trying to understand antennas should try to figure out how to do measurements that correlate well with radiated power and they need to understand the severe limitations of doing so using on-air A/B tests (which are a great starting point but generally will have huge errors)

A flip side to this is that I also think that we need to stop pretending that it MATTERS to most ham radio activities to have a really detailed understanding of antenna performance to within a few dB. Most of the time it doesn't actually matter.
 
Rational Radio  
by K1CJS on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Maybe that is the problem. Too many of us lose sight of the fact that this is only a hobby.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by N3OX on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
My hobby is measuring stuff.
 
Rational Radio  
by KL7AJ on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
As I point out in Radio Science fir the Radio Amateur, good scientific method requires that you only change one variable at a time. Strict adherence to this will prevent one of the greatest fallacies in most amateur radio discussions...confusing COINCIDENCE with CORRELATION.

In Amaateur radio operation, we work with many simultaneous variables, some of which we have control over, and some of which we don't. To make any valid measurements, we need to KNOW what variables we can control in the first place, and those we cant. But equally importantly, we have to measure the RIGHT THING...and this is where so many hams go astray.

For example...the bottom line in any kind of antenna and transmission line tweaking we might do is to MAXIMIZE RADIATED FIELD STRENGTH. And yet, it is astonishing how few hams have ANY equipment available for even performing the crudest RELATIVE measurement of field strength. I'm not talking about NIST certified field strength measurements...I'm just talking about "Is what I'm twiddling making the signal stronger or weaker?" Such a rudimentary test alone would eliminate about 99% of the "controversy" about transmission lines and antenna tuners. (I put controversy in quotes, because there IS no controversy for anyonoe who's actually PERFORMED the aforementioned field strength comparisons).

On a par with a lot of hogwash pertinent to SWR and such, is the issue of RECIPROCITY. On this issue, hams actually have a valid excuse for confusion, because this "doctrine" has been perpetrated by even the most reputable publications for the past three quarters of a century.

RECIPROCITY is a principle that only applies to antennas in free apace. It tells us that the gain and pattern of an antenna are the same whether it's used for transmitting or receiving. Unfortunately, this principle has been absolutely erroneously applied to H.F. propagation paths.

Reciprocity of H.F. ionospheric propagation is based on two absolutely WRONG assumptions....which I point out in my December 2010 QST article, "Gimme and X, Gimme an O...What's that spell? Radio!"

Assumption 1 is that the path from point A to point B is the same as from point B to point A...in other words, supposedly there is no such thing as one-way propagation. WRONG.

Assumption 2 is that H.F. radio paths follow GREAT CIRCLE routes. Wrong again. The only time this is true is when there is no terrestrial magnetic field....in other words, if you happen to be at precisely the magnetic equator...talking to another ham who's ALSO at the magnetic equator. How often does that happen?

This matter of reciprocity is especially a curious one, probably more from a SOCIALOGICAL viewpoint than a SCIENTIFIC one. The NON-reciprocity of H.F. radio signals is astonishigly easy to demonstrate. In fact most hams who have been on H.F. more than a few weeks have probably COMPLAINED about the results of this, but don't DARE even suggest that one-way propagation could be the cause of their ills! To do so would contradict the holy doctrine of reciprocity. It is the elephant in the room that nobody will acknowledge.

So, we need to add that, not only should a ham be interested in maximizing radiated power...but it MIGHT possibly be useful to ask whether that radated power is going somewhere that might do you some good!

Eric
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by K9MHZ on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Quick question, Eric....does living at high latitudes influence your observed results, that is....appreciably different than stations at much lower latitudes where orientations to mag flux lunes are much better "behaved" than way up north?

Anecdotally, In my years serving Uncle Sam, I was always amazed at the differences in HF antennas used on a base compared to ham directional HF antennas. Some log periodics, but many wire designs that would presumably capture signals from a more vertical aspect instead of just in a horizontal plane.

Thanks,

Brad, K9MHZ

 
RE: Rational Radio  
by KL7AJ on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
HI Brad:

Indeed! Although the magnetic field lines are "better behaved" up here...they are also much more INTENSE. The result of this is that the X and O mode paths have much more divergences. I showed this in my March 2012 article, "Three wrong assumptions about the Ionosphere." I showed comparative ionograms of HAARP (near us) and Jicamarca, Peru, near the magnetic equator. Down there, the X and O traces are practically on top of each other, while up here, they can diverge in nearly opposite directions (for NVIS signals)

Eric
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by KL7AJ on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Hi again, Brad:

A little side note. I don't know if it can be demonstrated that on the average mid latitude magnetic fields are more or less "stable" than in polar regions. Since the field lines are much more concentrated up here they have a more DOMIENANT effect over other factors, which can have a "simplifiying" if not necessarily stabilizing effect. However, during solar events, the magnetic fields also tend to concentrate the particle streams, which can be highly destabilizing...as is very evident with visible Auroras. Particle storms tend to be "sucked into" the magnetic poles. However, in lower latitudes, the ionosphere is generally HIGHER (and thinner), and thus more influenced by other factors, such as thermal and "weather" effects and such.

Remember the ionosphere is on top of the "normal" atmosphere, and as such experiences weather-like effects too!
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by K9MHZ on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
VERY, VERY interesting, Eric. Thank you so much!

Best,
Brad, K9MHZ

 
RE: Rational Radio  
by N4JTE on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
A little more info would be welcome, why not explore the myths you allude to ?
There is a lot of great feedline info out there, feedline calculators etc. that are well designed.
I guess I am waiting for the point of this article besides the obvious assertation that some hams do not understand feedline theory, I don't understand string theory and would hope that an article about it would fill in some gaps as opposed to this article that tells me very little on the article subject.
Bob
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by W5WSS on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
When two different antennas are used for point to point communications minus any sky wave variable, then the erp of the path linking the two is a reciprocal one even when obviously two identical antennas and output power will be equivalency, but even when one is using a gain antenna to a dipole the field strength along the point to point path is equal relative to each other, for example I transmit 100 watts presenting an erp from my system and the point b station would receive with his, equaling the opposite case when reversed.
That is reciprocity and almost never occurs via sky wave paths. You are correct and I agree.

I have experienced signals arriving at within a few yards of identical antennas side by side and via rapid a/b switching observed dramatic, huge differences in signal strengths.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by KL7AJ on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
WSS:

You are correct about the definition of reciprocity of antennas themselves. As long as this isn't extrapolated too far, there's no problem. However, the implications of reciprocity have indeed been stretched far and wide in amateur radio conversation (and literature) to imply that ionospheric propagation is also reciprocal...which obviously it is not. I'm glad you mentioned the profound difference in sensitivity of two very closely spaced antennas...another entirely different manifestation of X and O propagation...one I haven't written about yet. This is precisely one of the things we CAN confirm with good measurement methodology. :)

Eric
 
Ham Radio is on a Sliding Scale  
by AI2IA on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to be a very good ham radio operator.

You don't need to think that you are a rocket scientist simply because you may be a good ham radio operator.

You can go as high as you want, as complicated as you can get, if you so desire, but .......

The fact remains - being an expert on radio physics does not necessarily make you one of the better ham radio operators.

Now, we have three classes of licenses. Oh, I know, some of you hate that idea, but the FCC thinks it is good.

What do these licenses cover each in its own category, and why?

Do these licenses place limitations on your ability to acquire unlimited radio knowledge? Of course not!

What you do with amateur radio is up to you. As long as you operate within you license and according to the rules and regulations, no other ham can pass judgment on you as being any less of a ham than any other ham.

Come on fellows, lets put it all in realistic perspective! It is okay to have your head in the clouds as long as you have your feet firmly on the ground. Okay?
 
Rational Radio and irrationality  
by WB0GBI on February 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
A good article about bringing logic and rational thinking to feedlines and SWR. It's too bad such rationality can't be brought to bear in the claims some make about how the G5RV is a wonderful all band antenna with low SWR, but I digress.
It is unfortunate that the disussion devolves into irrationality and psuedo science about "intelligent design". (ID) ID is a political movement designed to make an end run around Supreme Court rulings that creationism can't be tought in our public schools. While creationism is the belief that the earth and life were "poofed" into existance 6017 years ago last October 23rd. There are virtually no physicists that support such nonsense. There is not a single peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal that supports ID or any research that supports it.
On the other hand there are a lot of peer-reviewed articles about transmission line and antenna theory. It is interesting that some can be rational on some topics and totally irrational on others.
 
Rational Radio  
by AE5QB on February 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
When I first read this article, the hair began to stand up on my neck. I am not clear of the intent of this article - is it to degrade and admonish those in the hobby or is it suppose to inspire all of us to become better scientists and engineers? If it is the latter, I think there are better methods to achieve the goal, but that is me.

I will say that this is a hobby that has become reasonably easy to get into. Therefore, we should expect a continuum of knowledge and skills from newbie-know-very-little to those who have been broadcast engineers for their entire lives, and lots of us in between.

But I am willing to bet my teacher paycheck that even those lifelong engineers are really not know-it-alls and have a few misconceptions of their own. And in the unlikely event that they do know everything there is to know about radio, there are probably other subjects or hobbies in which they participate for which they have misconceptions.

My point is that misconceptions are part of the game. They have been a large part of the game forever. The greatest minds on earth including Einstein had misconceptions that they/he would have argued as fact for many years. Mankind in general has misconceptions about the universe today that one day will make the greatest minds of today seem ignorant. But that is OK, that is what it is. I find it a weak argument to criticize those who spend only a fragment of their lives in ham radio for having misconceptions. How about well written articles in layman's terms that work to clear the misconceptions rather than criticism of those who have them.

So if I had to sum this up, I would say, get off your high horse, if that is what this is. On the other hand, if it is to encourage all of us to better implement the scientific method, be more objective in our thought processes, and always strive to redifine the truth closer to reality, then sure, a noble effort.

I have a cartoon that shows a young child talking to his teacher and it says, "One day my generation is going to rule the world. And if we say 2+2=5 then that is the way it is going to be." Unfortunately, we live in a time when leaders are teaching our children that redifining the truth to meet our needs and beliefs is OK.

In the end, there is no defying phyics, but we may not understand all we think we do about the subject. Can you say, "misconceptions?"

The truth shall set us free.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by K9MHZ on February 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Guys......I think you're making Eric's point precisely.

He's just writing that it's better to have an attitude of inquisitiveness and investigation rather than merely accepting what's heard outright. Don't jump at the notion that the discussion has turned toward the esoteric and therefore somehow belittling those who don't have the time, money, or educational background to do so. I would think that a retired teacher would especially welcome what Eric has written.

It's all good, guys....just learn and enjoy the learning.

Best,
Brad, K9MHZ

 
RE: Rational Radio  
by N4EV on February 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Great article! I always get a kick out of some of the things we hear on the air.

I have always heard "If the facts do not conform to the theory, THEY must be disposed of."

This was from a PHD I worked with several years ago.

Thanks for your article.
Clayton N4EV
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by W8ATA on February 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Ate Chinese this week. Fortune cookie disclosed:
"Truth is an unpopular subject because it is unquestionably correct." Ah so!
73,
Russ
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by N1DVJ on February 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
KL7AJ:

"Evolution is hard to prove one way or another, because biology TAKES so long."

Actually, there are very simple experiments that even a high school biology class can perform in one semester with fruit flies...
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by WA8MEA on February 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
>>Actually, there are very simple experiments that even a high school biology class can perform in one semester with fruit flies...<<

HUGE difference between ADAPTION and evolution. I have yet to see a protozoa evolve into a human being. For that matter, I have yet to see a chimp evolve into a human being.

I did enjoy the so-called evolutionary link attempted to be made regarding fruit flies and teaching them to "count". I am now waiting for the first fruit flies to solve polynomials.

Now excuse me while I go ADAPT to this very cold Michigan morning, by putting on my long johns, winter clothing, coat, hat and gloves....and warming up my car's heating system.

73, Bill
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by WA8MEA on February 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
We have taken an OT turn on this article, but I would like to close and move on after making one last point:

TIME is said to be on the side of evolutionists. I say; a one pound, thick sliced, all-beef package of BALONEY!

Time is THE ENEMY of the evolutionist! Why? The food chain!

The food needed for many species to survive simply evolves much too slowly under the THEORY of evolution.

Creation is the only science that can explain the complex food chain required to keep most of our species alive within their first 48 hours of life.

That's 48 hours, not 48 trillion hours....

Therefore, the time element of evolution would lead in the opposite direction - extinction. However, it is hard to extinct something that wouldn't even be allowed to exist under the THEORY of evolution.

73, Bill
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by K8QV on February 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
<<<Creation is the only science that can explain the complex food chain required to keep most of our species alive within their first 48 hours of life.>>>


Sir, you have no understanding of the word 'theory' in its scientific application, and no understanding of the mechanism of evolution. You are not qualified, therefore, to comment on the scientific "theory." "Creationism" is not a science, but an attempt by apologists to reconcile reality with a preconceived and unfounded belief. Science looks at evidence and draws a conclusion, religion makes a conclusion and then tries to make the evidence fit.

Sorry, but there is so much misinformation floating about I can't help but point it out. First, one must understand a subject before mounting an argument against it.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by N1DVJ on February 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"HUGE difference between ADAPTION and evolution"

Uh... I sense a SERIOUS and COMPLETE lack of comprehension here...

I hope to God you're not a teacher!

 
RE: Rational Radio  
by WA8MEA on February 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
>>First, one must understand a subject before mounting an argument against it.<<

OK Chris, if you have just counted me out....I will have to count you out, also.

Using your logic, YOU cannot make any arguments against the science of creation since you do not understand it; therefore you cannot mount an argument against it.

Conclusion (under your rules!) - stalemate.

Therefore, the discussion is now closed.

Have a great rest of the weekend....

73, Bill
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by N1DVJ on February 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I'm always amazed that the creationist can insist that evolution is just a theory but Creationism is a science.

Uh, excuse me? A science?

Show me ONE concrete difference that lends more credence to creationism that Pastafarianism. Just ONE!!!! I personally (please note that I'm specifying personally) put creationism just below black cats, walking under ladders, and believing that any number with 666 in it is evil and dooms my soul to hell.

 
RE: Rational Radio  
by WA8MEA on February 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
>>....put creationism just below black cats, walking under ladders, and believing that any number with 666 in it is evil and dooms my soul to hell.<<

Thanks for confirming C.S. Lewis:

"Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?" (C.S. Lewis - The Oxford Socratic Club - 1944)
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by K8QV on February 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Ye shall not be moved. Been there, done that, know more now. Peace out.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by N1DVJ on February 18, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
You know, you keep coming back to this as if creationism is a scientific fact, but in reality it's faith. Faith based on misinterpreted data with not ONE SHRED of valid and recognizable scientific foundation to it.

And that's ok, because that's what faith is.

But when you call it a fact or claim that it's a science, watch out.

And to be fair, one religion over another in these kinds of discussions has really no place in amateur radio. My religion has formally declared evolution as a scientific fact. It originally did so in the mid to late 60's, but it was kind of vague. Last summer it was cemeted formally in a very clear declaration.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by DLUND on February 18, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I'm going to jump in here anonymously (sort of) because this topic gets pretty controversial.

It's important to define "evolution". There is microevolution (i.e. beak sizes in Darwins finches), and macroevolution ("molecules to man"). Some people equate common descent with evolution. Then there is the idea of guided vs unguided evolution.

Most of the disbelief comes into play when people are talking about unguided processes creating everything. The evidence stated above (i.e. Tiktaalik) supports common descent, but I think its a stretch to interpret it as supporting the idea that undirected processes have the creative power needed to make everything.

This will probably put me in the category of people who need to be dragged into the 21st century. I've spent quite a bit of time researching both sides of the issue. I see evidence to support some kind of intelligent design, but I don't see convincing evidence to support the belief that the universe is the result of unguided processes. I keep an open mind about this and occasionally re-evaluate, but so far I have not seen anything that convinces me that unguided evolution is supported by the facts. In fact the more I've looked into it, the more I am convinced I am that unguided processes are not enough.
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by W5DXP on February 18, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
> KL7AJ wrote: "The Universe just got a lot MORE complicated (and statistically unlikely!) with the recent discovery of photon entanglement....the ability of a photon to communicate its current state to another photon...but not EVERY other photon."

The most fantastic thing is that those two entangled photons communicate instantaneously at faster than light speeds no matter how far apart they are. Just about the only conclusion possible is that reality is non-local.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by W5DXP on February 18, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
> AE5QB wrote: "In the end, there is no defying phyics, but we may not understand all we think we do about the subject."

No problem - just blame everything you don't understand on the supernatural like man has always done and some continue to do.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com
 
RE: Einstein's Opinion  
by K1DA on February 20, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Then measure it after it takes lightning hit :) .
 
Mocked  
by MICKEYABBOTT on February 21, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Another problem we have - our worldview seems to be limited to our own backyard. When you visit other nations around the world, the USA and the Euros who teach evolution are literally laughed at and mocked when told we teach we are the descendants of apes.
 
RE: Mocked  
by N1DVJ on February 21, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"laughed at and mocked when told we teach we are the descendants of apes"

And this is a problem because....

Uh, if we visit a backward area where the inhabitants believe the earth is on the back of a turtle, and we're mocked because we believe it's a spherical object in space, we should feel that's a problem too?
 
RE: Mocked  
by MICKEYABBOTT on February 21, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
==Uh, if we visit a backward area where the inhabitants believe the earth is on the back of a turtle==

I don't believe I said a damn thing about 3rd world nations. I specifically, let me repeat, specifically stated Americans and Euros. I hate it when people put words into other people's writings.

Plenty of industrialized nations around the world that laugh at us. Contrary to that 80's song, we are not the world.

So get out of the house once in a while and travel the world.

 
RE: Mocked  
by N1DVJ on February 21, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Uh, so now you want to limit the scope of your declaration?

And my jobs over my career has had lots of interactions around the world. And I've visited all the continents that have permanent residents except Africa.

I think you're the one being laughed at...
 
RE: Mocked  
by MICKEYABBOTT on February 21, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
About all I've witnessed from you and Chris are a bunch of accusations, name calling and fact-less diatribe. You are critical of others who have entered the discussion with interesting creation points, yet you have nothing to offer from your evolution point of view. In this forum, it appears the creationists have won the debate by default. BTW, why are you so involved in the anti-abortion movement? After all, we are just a bunch of apes anyway. So what if we kill each other off. No creator, no after life, right???
 
RE: Mocked  
by N1DVJ on February 22, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
You obviously have everything wrong. First off, I'm not anti-abortion at all. Pro-choice is one of my 'ticket items'.

I'm not anti-creationist. You can personally believe what you wish. Faith is just that, a personal belief. I'm just rabidly against anyone trying to present what they believe as fact or science when it has no basis in either.
 
RE: Mocked  
by MICKEYABBOTT on February 22, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
==against anyone trying to present what they believe as fact or science when it has no basis in either==

So you must therefore be against evolution, since it is fact-less. I have yet to see the scientific law of evolution spill out from my science books.

You must have a long-lost clone out there. Two MJY's who have lived in the same towns, go to the same church, participate in the same causes and are involved in scouting. What an amazing coincidence!
 
Rational Radio  
by AC7KZ on February 22, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
???
 
RE: Mocked  
by N1DVJ on February 22, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"So you must therefore be against evolution, since it is fact-less"

Are you on drugs? Or just seriously delusional? Darwin didn't just spring on the scientific community out of the blue, you know. There were other, close but not quite right, theories before Darwin presented his. And Darwin, in his book, listed the shortcomings in his theory. (See I think Chapter 6. Oh, I'm sorry, you won't read it!) But Darwins shortcomings to his theory have since been knocked down. Scientific proof, or at least observational evidence of Darwin has been presented for years. Some of it even BEFORE Darwin. From pidgeons to peas to fruit flies. Open your eyes, or should I say mind? It's obviously closed. And skewed. It has to be if you think creationism is science. Read my lips (if you're close enough) it's FAITH! Not fact. Not science. Faith. And my beef is with the people who can't tell the difference.

Ad checking me out? That's fine. I notice you are hiding being no call sign. Yes, I'm a scout leader. Is that suppose to be intimidating or a threat that you can check me out?

Geesh, it figures. I have a friend whose one of the 'old school' southern baptist evangelical preachers. When we argue, he falls back to "But let me tell you one thing" Only your falling back to intimidation and nonsense.

Go away
 
RE: Mocked  
by MICKEYABBOTT on February 22, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
That's different. I give my full name and you say I am hiding by not using a call. Funny guy there, Mikey.

I know all about the pigeons and the fruity flies and the Galapagos and so on.

Can I ask you something? Believe me, this does have a point. Since you believe in evolution, you must therefore believe that man has been around for millions of years; evolving, so to speak.

Do you believe that homosexuality has been around for as long as man has been around?
 
RE: Mocked  
by DLUND on February 22, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"But Darwins shortcomings to his theory have since been knocked down. "

I would say that while some of the shortcomings to Darwins theory have been "knocked down", many others have been raised. At least the "unguided" version of the theory is in under attack (and not just from a political or religious angle).

The relative lack of transitional fossils calls the traditional idea of gradual evolution into question. Punctuated equilibrium is used to explain the abrupt appearance and disappearance of life forms, but that is a significant departure from the gradual progression that the fossil record was expected to show. The fact that a hypothesis like that is needed indicates that one of the fundamental pieces of supporting evidence is missing.

The irreducible complexity of biological components is very unlikely in a scenario that is driven by random processes. For example, the eye (an extremely sophisticated piece of machinery on its own) would be useless without the optical nerve and without the image processing parts of the brain that interpret the signals sent by the eye. That is just one obvious example. There are many other things that exhibit irreducible complexity.

Some things that have been held up as "proof" that there is no intelligent design have been found to be wrong. Not too long ago, the appendix was "known" to be useless and in fact dangerous. More recently it was found to have a function related to culturing bacteria. The "inside-out" retina was thought to be an example of something that would never have been done by an intelligent designer, but more recently it was was found to be optimal.

Comments by prominent athiestic evolutionists, such as Richard Lewontin, about the need to accept "unsubstantiated just-so stories", and the "commitment to materialism" don't help the case.

I would like to make a pre-emptive response to some expected arguments. I know that Stephen J Gould did not like people using his hypothesis to criticize evolutionary theory in general, but the fact is that the gradual progression of life forms expected in the fossil record has not been found. Regarding irreducible complexity, many people claim that traditional examples of irreducible complexity (such as the eye, or the bacterial flagella) can be constructed through a series of random mutations. I don't dispute that they COULD be, but no one has provided evidence that they actually ARE the result of random mutations. They provide "just-so stories" to describe how it might have happened and consider the case closed, but "just-so stories" are not compelling evidence. Similar but less developed systems provide as much evidence for common design as they do for common descent, but they really don't support the idea that random mutations have the creative power to build such systems.

In any case, I don't think its an open and shut case of faith vs facts.






 
RE: Mocked  
by N1DVJ on February 23, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
No one said Darwin was perfect. Even Darwin didn't say that.

And evolution doesn't have to take geologic times. There's the case of a butterfly in England. Wing color mutated to black in the industrial age to let it blend to the darkened bark of the trees. The when there was the ecological cleanup, once the trees 'lightened up' from the lack of coal soot, the butterfly again mutated to match the new bark color. In a matter of a few years.

One of the more modern findings are a couple of lakes in Africa that didn't get explored until the mid to lete 20th century. Turns out they were recently formed, in geologic terms, and while totally separate, certain fish had evolved in the two lakes into a multitude of specialized species. But what was startling was that when the two lakes were compared to each other, it was discovered there were commonalities. That is, when the lakes formed and the common fish were separated and then set on a separate evolutionary path, there were commonalities that just shouldn't be there.

And yes, you can look at the evolutionary tree and see lots of examples of that. Species diverge, but then show common traits that appear in both branches.

That does seem show that evolution is proceeding along some sort of 'direction'. Is it something ingrained so deep that it's not been discovered yet? Or an outside power? Who knows...
 
RE: Mocked  
by WA8MEA on February 23, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
==There's the case of a butterfly in England. Wing color mutated to black in the industrial age to let it blend to the darkened bark of the trees. The when there was the ecological cleanup, once the trees 'lightened up' from the lack of coal soot, the butterfly again mutated to match the new bark color. In a matter of a few years.==
------------------------------------------
Reason - General Laws of Adaptation to Environmental Factors.

Google it.

 
RE: Mocked  
by MICKEYABBOTT on February 23, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I wouldn't take this route, MEA. Adaption can be used against you in a court of evolution. I do understand where you are coming from. But if you are going to argue against evolution, adaption swings both ways - it can be used to argue for evolution are in favor of intelligent design.

There are better arguments available exclusively against evolution.
 
RE: Mocked  
by K8QV on February 23, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
 
RE: Mocked  
by MICKEYABBOTT on February 23, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
^^Bacterial resistance to antibiotics^^

This is the result of mutation, not evolution. But, if this is being offered as proof that we've all evolved through mutation, then we should all become very gross-like in a few million years.

;-)
 
Rational Radio  
by KL7AJ on February 23, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
If I might respectfully re-inject myself into the topic for a moment...here are a few things to consider.

Under the classical definition of a theory, neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design, nor Creationism really qualify. These are all FRAMEWORKS, which are far too all-encompassing to be expressed as concise theories. Now, depending on which of these frameworks one is working under, might suggest the type of experiments one my decide to perform. Then again, it might not.

Ohm's Law really doesn't depend on one's philosophical or religious framework (which is probably a good thing). Furthermore it's wrong to assume that all...or even the majority of scientific investigation being carried out worldwide is for the purpose of proving or disproving evolution or creationism. When I worked in the UCLA plasma lab, we had Christians, Muslims, Jews, and a Sikh working on this one particular project...a calcium isotope separator. Our driving motive was to create a potentially medically important process...not to prove anything about the origins or man.

An equal amount of research is performed for sheer curiosity...and this probably includes the majority of space exploration.


General point #2. The scientific method is NEVER rightly used to DISPROVE anything...only to PROVE something. If I propose a hypothesis that a Higgs Boson exists, you only need to find ONE Higgs Boson to prove that hypothesis correct! (Assuming that the methodology is valid) You can NEVER prove that a Higgs Boson does NOT exist just because you've never found one.


General point #3. An objective reality exists. There IS a correct answer, regardless of any human investigation or opinion. Whether or not Creation (or evolution) exists is totally independent of anyone's belief system OR scientific method. Here's sort of a crude example of how this works.

Let's say I have a son who hates me. (This is a big stretch, because my son and I are great great buds...always have been...but let's just assume for the sake of argument....)

So, little "Floyd" has disowned me as his father. (Naming anyone Floyd is probably a just cause for disowning one's father). He has managed to convince all his playmates that I never existed. As he enters college, he even develops some sophisticated experiments that prove that I never existed. All his professors are impressed with his hypothesis and scientific method. In fact, he earns a PhD, and his thesis is "Conclusive proof that Eric P. Nichols Never Existed." He goes on to win a Nobel Prize based on his experiment that shows that I never existed.

Of course, none of this has any bearing at all on whether I actually exist or not. I've even read the thesis and commented on it...which would be a bit difficult if I didn't exist. (Not to mention that I paid for his tuition through 4 years of grad school)

Eric
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by DLUND on February 24, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"No one said Darwin was perfect. Even Darwin didn't say that."

Agreed. I hope my comment didn't imply that I think that mistakes undermine the theory. Theories develop as new things are learned, and its expected that they will change. I was just trying to point out that the theory is not beyond questioning, and that there is evidence to support alternatives.

"There's the case of a butterfly in England".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that falls into the "genetic drift" category, in this case, a minor genetic difference that led to variations in wing color. Macro-evolution would require significantly larger changes, and there is very little evidence that supports the idea that signficantly larger changes would come about randomly.


"http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution"

Four of the five "proofs" (I would call it "evidence" instead of "proof") support common descent, not unguided evolution. Those four proofs could just as well support common design. I'm probably biased by my experience as a software developer. Code re-use is common, and re-using techniques and tweaking them to solve a slightly different problem is also common. Its considered good design in most cases. Its also fairly common to see simple code developed into complex systems. Looking at the code, its easy to see the similarities and relationships. So from my perspective (I'm not claiming this as proof, just a viable alternative), similarities between organisms, and progression from simpler to more complex organisms is just evidence for good design and typical development processes. The fifth "proof" (bacterial resistance to antibiotics) is considered micro-evolution, minor genetic changes that are not really in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not macro evolution is essentially cumulative micro evolution.
 
Rational Radio  
by WA1UFO on February 24, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Right on! There is so much BS accepted as fact in almost every subject on Earth, it's no wonder that mankind keeps doing the same imbecilic things. Thanks for a great article!
 
Rational Radio  
by W3DCB on February 24, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Oh, boy do I agree! Furthermore, it doesn't always require a measurement! In nearly every walk of life, just picking up a book and reading a bit can save one hours of misplaced energy out of ignorance! Over the past months, I have repeatedly heard a particular ham on 40 meters exclaim, "Now I'm working you long-path." This fellow truly believes that pointing his beam 180 degrees away from the station with whom he is in contact allows him to work the station "long path" -- meaning his signal thus travels the long way around the earth rather than a short "skip" to the other side of the country or a few states away. Not only that, nearly each and every ham with whom he speaks seems to buy into his story and he incessantly speaks about this faux "phenomenon." Without hunting for this fellow, for some reason, I happen upon him serendipitously too often. Imagine how much bandwidth could be saved with ~20 minutes of reading about plasma physics and transmission theory. I see this in my profession just as often. One would be amazed how many medical practitioners don't keep up with current research causing the ordering of unnecessary medical tests and the employment of outdated non-efficacious therapies where just a bit of reading could change one's practice for the better. However, at least when we hams speak out of ignorance (and I include myself here), we do not cause harm or suffering by delaying treatment!
 
RE: Rational Radio  
by MICKEYABBOTT on March 3, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Isn't it odd that there are virtually NO televised debates between evolution-believing scientists and creation scientists? And considering the fact that roughly half of all scientists (and 88 % of the public) believe in (either) spontaneous or slow Creation this is even more astounding. One reason for this is because of scientists like Dr. Duanne Gish, who for many years did debate evolution scientists on college campuses, yet because he won virtually all of them, little by little, evolutionists became unwilling to debate. Kent Hovind also noticed the same thing and explains why this is so in a talk he gave at U.C. Berkeley. For example, more and more people are realizing that since they didn't make themselves somebody else must have done so, and that a Creator is necessary to Create. In fact, life is so complex that even scientists are realizing that it could not have created itself: even in trillions of years. In this regard Francis Crick, who was a co-discoverer of DNA proposed that life came from outer space. That's because he realized it could not have arisen on planet earth -- and that even water itself works against the creation of life from non-life.
 
Rational Radio  
by WA4PTZ on March 24, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Bravo! And you can tell by many of the comments that
Truth has been lost again. I guess beating ones gums
trumps truth. You tried. I commend you.
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
Ham Radio Supporting Field Medicine
My Story: July 17th 1964
Funny SMPP App Note


Other Antennas Articles
The 'Wadetenna' for HF Pedestrian Mobile
DXE-ATSA-1 Works on 160 Meters