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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: • Favorite Old Wives' Tales •  (Read 32370 times)
KB8E
Member

Posts: 25




Ignore
« Reply #90 on: November 17, 2011, 08:13:54 AM »

It's a shame, really. There are some very knowledgeable people on these threads such as Tom, Susan, and others and to ignore their input is simply foolish. WS3N's analogy to synchrotron radiation when talking about antenna radiation was quite astute. The original poster's response of "what particle?" spoke volumes. Does he not know (or can't go to the link's posted) that a synchrotron is a particle accelerator? I think Tom's right, we're wasting our breath here, but I appreciate the informative and interesting replies.
Sam
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #91 on: November 17, 2011, 09:07:30 AM »

The first sign of trouble in this thread was when AG6K couldn't or wouldn't back up his statements with authoritative references to back up his claims.

The only references he gives are his own, not even college text books all of the statements used to back up his claims are hearsay and wouldn't ever stand up to peer review.


I'm amazed that someone can be so bullheaded as not to see the flaws in their thinking it is as if we are discussing religion here and are required to ignore the laws of nature as an article of faith. Once again it appears that sold science based on observation and mathematics is the heretic.

Amazing, simply amazing.

It has historically been this way from the beginning. At first the ARRL got sucked into the nonsense, but when they sent the article out for comment (AFTER it was published) they could not find one single outside source who agreed with any of the major article points.

Then, years later, they started to accept a Handbook section from the same source. When that section went out for review comment, the comments were "I'm not sure about the rest, but I know this area is wrong". Of course references were sited showing the error. The sum total of all comments, by over a dozen reviewers, was that virtually the entire thing was wrong.

Instead of the author providing a technical response with supporting references, the author's response insulted reviewers  personally. One of the author's more memorable response lines, directed to comments by an Eimac engineer, said something to the effect of "Eimac calls people who clean bathrooms "engineers".

Then, when that very odd response letter never got published, the author considered QST part of a money motivated conspiracy with manufacturers against him, even though many of the reviewers were not advertisers. Included in that list of reviewers was a senior engineer at Rockwell-Collins, who wrote many engineering textbooks.

Overall this appears like a waste of time, like arguing with a rock. The problem is, not arguing lets more people get sucked in to nonsense, and another misconception becomes an article that damages our overall knowledge.

As time consuming as it is, and as bad form as it is, to get into these debates, it is necessary. Otherwise some pretty bad information gets accepted as fact, and some unsuspecting person writes an article that sets our overall understand back.
For example, the recent QST article on filament voltage was based on articles by this same problematic author.

The balun on the input of a tuner also came, or was promoted, by the same source. Now we have all areas of an antenna radiates significantly or equally, and other nonsense.

73 Tom
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #92 on: November 17, 2011, 09:27:52 AM »

It's a shame, really. There are some very knowledgeable people on these threads such as Tom, Susan, and others and to ignore their input is simply foolish. WS3N's analogy to synchrotron radiation when talking about antenna radiation was quite astute. The original poster's response of "what particle?" spoke volumes.

  What particle is involved in EM radiation from an antenna Sam?  tnx

Quote
Does he not know (or can't go to the link's posted) that a synchrotron is a particle accelerator? I think Tom's right, we're wasting our breath here, but I appreciate the informative and interesting replies.
Sam
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #93 on: November 17, 2011, 09:50:20 AM »

The first sign of trouble in this thread was when AG6K couldn't or wouldn't back up his statements with authoritative references to back up his claims.

The only references he gives are his own, not even college text books all of the statements used to back up his claims are hearsay and wouldn't ever stand up to peer review.


I'm amazed that someone can be so bullheaded as not to see the flaws in their thinking it is as if we are discussing religion here and are required to ignore the laws of nature as an article of faith. Once again it appears that sold science based on observation and mathematics is the heretic.

Amazing, simply amazing.

It has historically been this way from the beginning. At first the ARRL got sucked into the nonsense, but when they sent the article out for comment (AFTER it was published) they could not find one single outside source who agreed with any of the major article points.

Then, years later, they started to accept a Handbook section from the same source. When that section went out for review comment, the comments were "I'm not sure about the rest, but I know this area is wrong". Of course references were sited showing the error. The sum total of all comments, by over a dozen reviewers, was that virtually the entire thing was wrong.

Instead of the author providing a technical response with supporting references, the author's response insulted reviewers  personally. One of the author's more memorable response lines, directed to comments by an Eimac engineer, said something to the effect of "Eimac calls people who clean bathrooms "engineers".

Then, when that very odd response letter never got published, the author considered QST part of a money motivated conspiracy with manufacturers against him, even though many of the reviewers were not advertisers. Included in that list of reviewers was a senior engineer at Rockwell-Collins, who wrote many engineering textbooks.

Overall this appears like a waste of time, like arguing with a rock. The problem is, not arguing lets more people get sucked in to nonsense, and another misconception becomes an article that damages our overall knowledge.

As time consuming as it is, and as bad form as it is, to get into these debates, it is necessary. Otherwise some pretty bad information gets accepted as fact, and some unsuspecting person writes an article that sets our overall understand back.
For example, the recent QST article on filament voltage was based on articles by this same problematic author.

  The "nonsense" on emissive life of of the carburized layer in a Th-W filament vs. V.  --  the formula for which is (V2/V1)23.4 --  came from Eimac, Tom R.

Quote
The balun on the input of a tuner also came, or was promoted, by the same source. Now we have all areas of an antenna radiates significantly or equally, and other nonsense.

  not equal, different in 2 ways to form the two parts of photons - one part being from E and the other part from I.
•••  Rich, ag6k

Quote
73 Tom
Logged
AF6LJ
Member

Posts: 63




Ignore
« Reply #94 on: November 17, 2011, 10:07:17 AM »

While debating with a man who won't post links or authors to back up his claims to how the physics of antennas, or (fill in the blank) is a waste of time to let him get away with spreading misinformation is in itself dangerous. When you let the truth go undefended you end up whole institutions built on miss or wrong information. I don't have to sight examples of this however if one wants one simply look at how the Second Amendment has been perverted into a privilege and not a right to defend against a government turned hostile.
(See The Federalist Papers)

With that said; I cannot understate the importance of defending the truth rather it's in the official meaning of a given rule or if it is the physical and provable facts of how antennas, vacuum tubes or transistors work.

While it could be successfully be argued this thread was launched for the entertainment of it's author, anytime someone misstates something as fact it should be challenged if for no other reasons than to set the record straight and give the author a chance to learn something potentially valuable.

Logged

Take Care
Sue,
AF6LJ
When it's time it's time, and it may be sooner than you think.
N3JBH
Member

Posts: 2358




Ignore
« Reply #95 on: November 17, 2011, 10:40:36 AM »

What simply flabbergasts me is how someone can be bewildered and berated so much on here yet still returns for more. I would sincerely believe that I would have tossed in the towel by this point. The sorrowful part of all this there is some confused Folks that really want to learn on here. And this dissemination of this fallacious information is truly saddening. I only hope that everyone can see through this pompous foolishness and recognize the real experts.
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #96 on: November 17, 2011, 10:55:40 AM »

Are you talking about the balun in the Palstar?
No - I'm referring to what you call an "ugly balun" in your QST article. Because it is air-cored it maintains a high CM impedance over a relatively narrow bandwidth, and that impedance is almost entirely reactive.

  I do not agree with your narrow bandwidth assertion Steve.  The ugly balun is constructed like the typical HV-RFC -- I.E. - a single layer solenoid air-core winding, which is the established  method of obtaining un-saturable XL with wide bandwidth.

If not reactive, then resistive?

Quote
Yes - ideally the CM impedance should be resistive;

  A balun that is resistive is going to convert RF watts into heat. 
•••  Rich, ag6k

Quote
that's the only way you can ensure that the CM current will be reduced whatever the complex impedance of the CM path. I explained that earlier.

Steve G3TXQ

Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #97 on: November 17, 2011, 11:13:34 AM »

While debating with a man who won't post links or authors to back up his claims to how the physics of antennas, or (fill in the blank) is a waste of time to let him get away with spreading misinformation is in itself dangerous. When you let the truth go undefended you end up whole institutions built on miss or wrong information. I don't have to sight examples of this however if one wants one simply look at how the Second Amendment has been perverted into a privilege and not a right to defend against a government turned hostile.
(See The Federalist Papers)

With that said; I cannot understate the importance of defending the truth rather it's in the official meaning of a given rule or if it is the physical and provable facts of how antennas, vacuum tubes or transistors work.

While it could be successfully be argued this thread was launched for the entertainment of it's author, anytime someone misstates something as fact it should be challenged if for no other reasons than to set the record straight and give the author a chance to learn something potentially valuable.

  What I have learned so far: 
1. Galbraith hit the bull's-eye.
2. Lincoln was right.
3. Groupies of "our recognized amplifier experts" have a built-in LPF.

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. "
    - John Kenneth Galbraith -

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the
time". -- Abraham Lincoln

••• Rich, ag6k
Logged
G3TXQ
Member

Posts: 1530




Ignore
« Reply #98 on: November 17, 2011, 11:14:38 AM »

I do not agree with your narrow bandwidth assertion Steve.  The ugly balun is constructed like the typical HV-RFC -- I.E. - a single layer solenoid air-core winding, which is the established  method of obtaining un-saturable XL with wide bandwidth.

Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change the facts - looked at the measured results here:
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes/

See how poor all the air-cored chokes are compared to the ferrite-cored designs.

A balun that is resistive is going to convert RF watts into heat.

The differential-mode signal doesn't drive core flux on a 1:1 current balun - so only the common-mode signal can generate heat in the core. If you have sufficient CM impedance, the CM signal will be small; that's the point of having the balun!

Steve G3TXQ
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #99 on: November 17, 2011, 11:24:54 AM »

What simply flabbergasts me is how someone can be bewildered and berated so much on here yet still returns for more. I would sincerely believe that I would have tossed in the towel by this point. The sorrowful part of all this there is some confused Folks that really want to learn on here. And this dissemination of this fallacious information is truly saddening. I only hope that everyone can see through this pompous foolishness and recognize the real experts.

  Only a real "recognized expert" is apparently capable of explaining that EM radiation really and truly does not have a E component at a right angle to the M component. 
-  Old wives' tales die an excruciatingly slow and painful death.
•••  Rich, ag6k
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #100 on: November 17, 2011, 11:28:39 AM »

I do not agree with your narrow bandwidth assertion Steve.  The ugly balun is constructed like the typical HV-RFC -- I.E. - a single layer solenoid air-core winding, which is the established  method of obtaining un-saturable XL with wide bandwidth.

Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change the facts - looked at the measured results here:
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes/

See how poor all the air-cored chokes are compared to the ferrite-cored designs.

A balun that is resistive is going to convert RF watts into heat.

The differential-mode signal doesn't drive core flux on a 1:1 current balun - so only the common-mode signal can generate heat in the core. If you have sufficient CM impedance, the CM signal will be small; that's the point of having the balun!

Steve G3TXQ

  Key word:  facts
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #101 on: November 17, 2011, 11:33:42 AM »

What simply flabbergasts me is how someone can be bewildered and berated so much on here yet still returns for more. I would sincerely believe that I would have tossed in the towel by this point. The sorrowful part of all this there is some confused Folks that really want to learn on here. And this dissemination of this fallacious information is truly saddening. I only hope that everyone can see through this pompous foolishness and recognize the real experts.

  chortle.  As I understand, it there is still of group of true believers who are absolutely, positively, 100% sure sure that the Apollo moon landings were filmed on a sound stage 45-miles West of here.

cheers
Rich, ag6k
Logged
AF6LJ
Member

Posts: 63




Ignore
« Reply #102 on: November 17, 2011, 11:36:58 AM »

While debating with a man who won't post links or authors to back up his claims to how the physics of antennas, or (fill in the blank) is a waste of time to let him get away with spreading misinformation is in itself dangerous. When you let the truth go undefended you end up whole institutions built on miss or wrong information. I don't have to sight examples of this however if one wants one simply look at how the Second Amendment has been perverted into a privilege and not a right to defend against a government turned hostile.
(See The Federalist Papers)

With that said; I cannot understate the importance of defending the truth rather it's in the official meaning of a given rule or if it is the physical and provable facts of how antennas, vacuum tubes or transistors work.

While it could be successfully be argued this thread was launched for the entertainment of it's author, anytime someone misstates something as fact it should be challenged if for no other reasons than to set the record straight and give the author a chance to learn something potentially valuable.

  What I have learned so far: 
1. Galbraith hit the bull's-eye.
2. Lincoln was right.
I don't have much respect for a man who suspended the Constitution as a quick fix for trying to keep the country together. Sorry Rich I'm not one of Lincoln's groupies.

None of this has anything to do with the truth as it applies to Amplifiers, antenna theory or magic God Particles that can in a nanosecond destabilize an otherwise poorly engineered amplifier.
Quote
3. Groupies of "our recognized amplifier experts" have a built-in LPF.
I keep my own counsel, I'm not anybody's groupie and I don't kiss anybody's butt unless they have given me a weeding ring. To simply keep changing the mantra, you are all Tom's followers is not only silly but it's bankrupt of any effectiveness to forward your opinion on the subject.
Quote
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. "
    - John Kenneth Galbraith -
So where is the proof Rich, prove to me and the rest out here you are right, show us the math, send us to credible references, I'll be the first to change my mind given sufficient proof that I am wrong in my beliefs.
Quote

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the
time". -- Abraham Lincoln

••• Rich, ag6k

Logged

Take Care
Sue,
AF6LJ
When it's time it's time, and it may be sooner than you think.
W7SMJ
Member

Posts: 126




Ignore
« Reply #103 on: November 17, 2011, 12:07:48 PM »


  The "nonsense" on emissive life of of the carburized layer in a Th-W filament vs. V.  --  the formula for which is (V2/V1)23.4 --  came from Eimac, Tom R.


Where exactly did Eimac publish this formula???

73,
Scott
Logged
W7SMJ
Member

Posts: 126




Ignore
« Reply #104 on: November 17, 2011, 12:13:46 PM »


  Only a real "recognized expert" is apparently capable of explaining that EM radiation really and truly does not have a E component at a right angle to the M component. 
-  Old wives' tales die an excruciatingly slow and painful death.
•••  Rich, ag6k


I have been following the various threads but I must have missed this.  Who said this?  If it is in one of these Amplifiers thread could you please provide a link?

73,
Scott
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!