When W1ZR's article appeared in the November 2009 QST it was *very*
controversial. Here's an example of the typical debate it engendered:
In that QST article Joel states that the loss measurements he made on
dry line "agreed with TLW predictions within a few tenths of a dB".
Given that a simple calculation involving Ohms Law will tell you that
the TLW predictions are wrong by a large margin, that must cast serious
doubt on his measurement technique.
On 26/01/2012 21:31, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
> We were speaking about using this transmission line at HF frequencies.
> 30 MHz is the highest frequency but for the vast majority of operations (on
> the air time), you could even say 21 MHz is the upper frequency limit.
> The study in that paper was showing 50 MHz and above.
> It appeared to get rapidly worse as the frequency rose.
> Can we not assume that it gets rapidly better at lower frequencies?
> If so, then Joel's test results could be accurate.
> If a non engineer measures losses on a line, then drags it in the mud and
> measures again, and gets trivial differences in the results, shall we
> discard his results just because he's not an engineer?
> L.B. Cebik? As I recall he was not an HF engineer, yet we (or I) hold his
> writings to be some of the best in existence.
> To be fair to Joel, we should at least read the article, see what he
> measured and how he measured and then criticize his results if something is
> foul. I don't think it's fair to criticize the paper based on what kind of
> Engineer wrote it.
> It wasn't really rocket science he was performing.
> It was simple tests that any good ham could perform.
> We just never took the time to do it.
> Unfortunately when I moved from the states back to Germany, I threw out all
> of my magazines so I no longer have the article. Maybe someone else here
> does and can recap what Joel reported. THEN we can beat it to death.
TenTec mailing list