In article , Patrick Turner
wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

In article , Patrick Turner
wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

As they say, "if the shoe fits wear it"! I remember the "thick as a
brick" thread from earlier this year, where you clearly demonstrated the
thickness of your skull. For those don't remember, that adventure might
have been called the "octave" matter. It was related to the slope
of the
attenuation curve of an RF tank circuit, IFT, or other similar circuit.

Phil Allison and I were quite correct in our assessment about
attenuation rates in RF tank circuits, and I was the one to measure
a typical
LC taken from an old radio and post the results at the binaries groups,
to prove and define what I was saying, leaving no room for any
doubt, or BS.

But that was my point, you were quite correct using your frame of
reference, on the other hand my assessment of the attenuation rates in RF
tank circuits was also correct, and also perfectly described your measured
data, even though it used a different frame of reference. Your position
was, and still seems to be that anyone who takes a different perspective
on a matter is of necessity wrong, even if the alternate perspective
explains the data as well, or even better than your perspective does, you
need to learn to think outside the box, and be more creative as it were.

No, not wrong. You could be right. I simply didn't bother to disprove
what you were
saying,
since could se no need. I already had a system which works for me,
and its found in the text books.

Where is your method also found in texbooks?

You should be able to locate it with Google, back around January of this
year, if you can't find it I will post a reference again if you do me the
courtesy of citing a textbook, with page number, where a description of
your system can be found. Is it in the RDH4, what page number?

I have seen no reference of your interpretive methodology in any
text books,
and the text book methods to which I adhere to explain it all nicely,
and I don't have any intention of going right through all that long and
tortuous
discussion again.

And I wouldn't ask you to, if you notice I am not disputing your method, I
am simply disputing your apparent claim that my method is invalid. I
would ask you for one favor though, could you cite some of the textbooks
that explain your method so nicely?

I would have a dozen on my shelf which explain radio theory sufficiently well,
including RDH4, and 11 others.

Ahh, the old weapons of mass destruction excuse, you have the RDH4 and 11
other text books, and yet you can't come up with a citation for your
method?


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/