>Rich said:
>
>"However, was it serendippity or good engineering practice by someone who
>had taken a course in AC circuit-analysis?"
>
>Rich, on numerous occasions, you have argued that someone a certain
>individual not be believed because he had not taken a course in AC
>circuit-analysis.
** Not quite. A person on this group who professed that AC
circuit-analysis does not apply to VHF R/L suppressors [reference
available on request], subsequently mentioned that he had not taken a
course in AC circuit-analysis. The same person said that Ni-Cr alloys
have less RF resistance as frequency increases. Do you believe this,
Colin?
> I find this a trivial statement. The only purpose is to
>insult that individual and attempt to discredit him, and make it easier to
>sell your position.
>
** My position is that AC circuit-analysis is valid today, was valid
before I was born, and will be valid long after I am outta here.
>To my knowledge, neither Hertz nor Tesla took courses in AC
>circuit-analysis. Does that mean that we should strike their works from the
>history books?
** Colin plays one Red Herring Card
>Does it mean that we should believe someone who took this
>particular course because a pretty red head woman took it, over someone else
>who learned it on his own?
>
** Mark Twain/Sam Clemens and Tom Jefferson never attended High School.
>I do not have a degree in electrical engineering - but I have a doctorate.
>That implies I can think. I have never taken a course in photography, but
>worked along side Ansel Adams. Should I throw my photographs out?
>
** two
>Whether someone has knowledge in a particular field has almost nothing to do
>with taking a course in school. And, if that is your best argument as to
>why that person should not be believed, then I will assume you have a pretty
>weak case.
** specious science ontains the seeds of its own nemesis.
- R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734, AG6K,
www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
|