Sure did, Steve! I ran it through a spice program and you're right in
every detail.
=======================

What makes you think Spice is correct? Its only a buggy computer
program.
Rubbish in - rubbish out!

Buggy?? I'm using Multisim (formerly EWB) which has been around longer
than most spices and therefore has probably less bugs than the rest
put together!


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

There's far too much blind faith placed in computer programs.

Programs can be no better than their authors who are only fallible human
beings.

Good programmers may be able to write practically bug-free programs. But
their technical knowledge of the subject matter might be no better than the
old-wives who write magazine articles and often contribute to these threads.

Without any intended offence, your Multisim program is worthless to me for
the purpose of checking or confirming anything. Why? Because I've never
even heard of it! Therefore it carries no weight in attempting to convince
me of anything.

Your use of the word "probably" is significant. In the absence of knowledge
of the probabilities involved I think it inadvertently displays a measure of
lack of confidence in the program.

The only way of accumulating confidence in a computer program is to use it
and compare results with what you are already aware of as being true. But if
what you are already aware of is untrue and so also is the computer (because
you both make the same easily-made mistakes) then your own confidence will
be improved but the confidence of others (who may think they know better) in
what you say will be undermined.

So, on balance, quoting (or misquoting) computers, measuring instruments,
magazine and other articles and contributors to this newsgroup is just a lot
of hot air and nobody gets anywhere. Reliabilty depends solely on the
confidence which can be placed in the writer.

In extreme cases some authors are worshipped as being infallible such as in
ARRL and RSGB handbooks, Terman and Kraus (who I have heard of). Name
dropping is better not practiced by name-droppers as a means of supporting
and reinforcing their technical arguments.

In the end, statements made by newsgroup contributors are made on their own
responsibility without the assistance of free adverts of type numbers of
particular measuring instruments, names of computer programs which the
great majority of readers have never heard of, the 3 gentlemen who
pronounced that 120 radials was a magic number but who forgot to measure
ground conductivity, and various worshipped authors whose printing errors
and misquoted sermons occasionally disagree with each other, etc.

I'll allow mention of Clerk Maxwell but only by people who have read and
understood him. And there's very few of them around. ;o)

Well, I've wandered around and probably said too much. I'm unable to swig
wine of any sort tonight because I'm on a 7-day course of anti-biotics and
it says on the associated leaflet, in capital letters, alcohol is barred.
----
Reg.