wrote in news:1109386325.451170.282470
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109271864.160442.290220
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:



. . test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems with
the Smith Chart...

73 de Jim, N2EY



There already are Smith Chart questions in the pool

Smith Charts became obsolete eons ago.

w3rv



It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109386325.451170.282470
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109271864.160442.290220
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:



. . test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems
with
the Smith Chart...

73 de Jim, N2EY



There already are Smith Chart questions in the pool

Smith Charts became obsolete eons ago.

w3rv



It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations

You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the calculations
either.

http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html

w3rv

wrote in news:1109446458.805271.244940
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109386325.451170.282470
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109271864.160442.290220
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:



. . test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems
with the Smith Chart...

73 de Jim, N2EY



There already are Smith Chart questions in the pool

Smith Charts became obsolete eons ago.

w3rv



It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations

You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the calculations
either.

http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html

w3rv


I still have a pad of Smith charts. I don't have Mathcad. I have the same
attitude to this as I do to Morse, i.e. to each his own. I don't see
anything wrong in having test questions on either subject, as I think
people should know about them, I just don't think that there should be a
test on copying code by ear.

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109446458.805271.244940
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:

wrote in news:1109386325.451170.282470
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:

wrote in news:1109271864.160442.290220
:


. . test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems
with the Smith Chart...

73 de Jim, N2EY



There already are Smith Chart questions in the pool

Smith Charts became obsolete eons ago.

w3rv



It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations

You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the calculations
either.

http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html

w3rv



I still have a pad of Smith charts. I don't have Mathcad. I have the same
attitude to this as I do to Morse, i.e. to each his own. I don't see
anything wrong in having test questions on either subject, as I think
people should know about them, I just don't think that there should be a
test on copying code by ear.

Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law..............

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law..............

With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has to
correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere "suggestions".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil Kane wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:


Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law..............


With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has to
correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere "suggestions".

Isn't that where weird science was invented?

- Mike KB3EIA -

From: "Phil Kane" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 8:23 am
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law..............

With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has to
correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere
"suggestions".

Phil, with some of the AMERICAN trained RF folks I've
worked with, the Smith Chart presentation on paper or on
the display screens of various RF instruments is an
indispensable tool for quickly observing both narrow- and
wideband behavior of RF structures.

Ohm's Law of Resistance is universally accepted in the radio
and electronics community worldwide...but there are some
huge exceptions with "foreign" concepts such as the Smith
Chart. Olde-tyme hammes haven't a clue on what the
wonderful chart tells them nor can they see the relationship
between complex quantities nor understand "normalization"
of impedance. Something involving algebra of three or more
quantities is apparently "rocket science" to them. shrug

I could do complex quantity calculations on my little
AMERICAN-made HP-25 and HP-67 pocket calculators
(made in HP's old plant in Oregon) and can still do them
on the Singapore-constructed HP 32S II (but designed by
HP) I have now. A few keystrokes is all. No "special
education" in Russia or any other foreign country needed
to do that. No PC is needed either, such as finding a
"calculator" Java script thing to find reactance at a
frequency (I can't believe some folks never progressed
far enough in self-education to learn the simple formulas
for reactance...or are afraid to learn and apply them).

If the Coslonaut thinks Smith Charts are obsolete then,
in this newsgroup, he will be "correct." In here the PCTA
extras are always right, anyone against them hate ham
radio and are always wrong. Rules of the Court as it were.

wrote:
From: "Phil Kane" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 8:23 am
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law..............

With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has
to
correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere
"suggestions".

Phil, with some of the AMERICAN trained RF folks I've
worked with, the Smith Chart presentation on paper or on
the display screens of various RF instruments is an
indispensable tool for quickly observing both narrow- and
wideband behavior of RF structures.

Ohm's Law of Resistance is universally accepted in the radio
and electronics community worldwide...but there are some
huge exceptions with "foreign" concepts such as the Smith
Chart. Olde-tyme hammes haven't a clue on what the
wonderful chart tells them nor can they see the relationship
between complex quantities nor understand "normalization"
of impedance. Something involving algebra of three or more
quantities is apparently "rocket science" to them. shrug

I could do complex quantity calculations on my little
AMERICAN-made HP-25 and HP-67 pocket calculators
(made in HP's old plant in Oregon) and can still do them
on the Singapore-constructed HP 32S II (but designed by
HP) I have now.

It was made in Indonesia Sweetums. Get SOMETHING right at least onece
in awhile WILLYA?

shrug


A few keystrokes is all. No "special
education" in Russia or any other foreign country needed
to do that. No PC is needed either, such as finding a
"calculator" Java script thing to find reactance at a
frequency (I can't believe some folks never progressed
far enough in self-education to learn the simple formulas
for reactance...or are afraid to learn and apply them).

If the Coslonaut thinks Smith Charts are obsolete then,
in this newsgroup, he will be "correct." In here the PCTA
extras are always right, anyone against them hate ham
radio and are always wrong. Rules of the Court as it were.

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109446458.805271.244940
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:




It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations

You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the
calculations
either.

http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html

w3rv


I still have a pad of Smith charts. I don't have Mathcad. I have the
same
attitude to this as I do to Morse, i.e. to each his own. I don't see
anything wrong in having test questions on either subject, as I think

people should know about them, I just don't think that there should
be a
test on copying code by ear.

.. . "Test questions on Morse"? . . "People should know about Morse"?
How many WPM izzat??

You obviously didn't spend much time cruising the link I posted. You
don't have to have Mathcad to solve transmission line problems to get
away from the primitive paper and pencil nonsense. There are freely
available Excel and Java routines which will do the job too.

Mathcad . . ah, yes . . If you do any engineering math which gets
complicated in Excel you need Mathcad Alun. I've been using it for
about ten years and it's become absolutely indispensible. Maybe only a
half hour after I first loaded and fired Mathcad up those ten years
ago and started messing with it I was running rapid-fire "what-if's" on
a double integral I'd dreamed up as an exercise. Very intuitive.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to run it. Heh.

'Tis an incredible solver which has saved me hundreds of hours of grunt
number crunching (and curve plotting BS) labor both on and off the job.
Don't believe the prices for it you see floating around the Web. My
latest iteration is v.2000 Pro ($800) which I bought in a
shrink-wrapped package for $65 at a local computer show after it was
one version outdated.

w3rv

wrote in news:1109527218.137133.13160
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109446458.805271.244940
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:




It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations

You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the
calculations either.

http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html

w3rv


I still have a pad of Smith charts. I don't have Mathcad. I have the
same attitude to this as I do to Morse, i.e. to each his own. I don't
see anything wrong in having test questions on either subject, as I
think

people should know about them, I just don't think that there should be
a test on copying code by ear.

. . "Test questions on Morse"? . . "People should know about Morse"?
How many WPM izzat??


Zero

You obviously didn't spend much time cruising the link I posted. You
don't have to have Mathcad to solve transmission line problems to get
away from the primitive paper and pencil nonsense. There are freely
available Excel and Java routines which will do the job too.

Mathcad . . ah, yes . . If you do any engineering math which gets
complicated in Excel you need Mathcad Alun. I've been using it for
about ten years and it's become absolutely indispensible. Maybe only a
half hour after I first loaded and fired Mathcad up those ten years
ago and started messing with it I was running rapid-fire "what-if's" on
a double integral I'd dreamed up as an exercise. Very intuitive.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to run it. Heh.

'Tis an incredible solver which has saved me hundreds of hours of grunt
number crunching (and curve plotting BS) labor both on and off the job.
Don't believe the prices for it you see floating around the Web. My
latest iteration is v.2000 Pro ($800) which I bought in a
shrink-wrapped package for $65 at a local computer show after it was
one version outdated.

w3rv



You're right, I didn't notice that there was a Java routine and an Excel
spreadsheet.

I'm a patent agent these days. I may write patent applications for
communications systems that have complex equations in them, but that's
about as close as I get to having to solve mathematical problems, except in
the hobby of course.

Smith charts are actually most useful for designing stubs. I suppose I
could design a stub match for a beam using a Smith chart if I felt so
inclined, I know how to do it, but 9/10 of hams only follow someone else's
published designs, or they might adjust the stub or other matching circuit
by trial and error.

For this reason I'm actually not sure of the value of testing hams on Smith
charts, but I felt pretty sure I had seen a question on them in the pool?