You might be speaking to me, and feel my response has been too harsh.

If someone told me something in casual conversation that I knew to be wrong,
I might tell them so, and walk away if neither of us could convince the other. 

Here we have a forum with perhaps thousands following the conversation,
trying to make sense of all this.  For some readers, it will be the loudest or most
persistent voice that carries the argument.  

If I see something of consequence proclaimed here that I know is wrong,
I will not just let it ride.  That's a disservice to everyone else here who might choose
to act on that information.  If it bruises an ego somewhere, that's arguably better
than a hundred forum readers wasting time and/or money trying to follow through.

I try to keep it civil, and acknowledge that others may be equally convinced 
that I am wrong.  The ideal is that the conversation comes to a test, 
such as the back to back broadband transformer test of post  54981 
 
Sometimes, both sides can be correct.
This is not one of them.
Issues like this are best resolved, not left hanging.

>  Likewise 2+3 does not necessarily equal 5 for depending on the circumstances 2+3 may equal zero.

Oooh, perhaps we should start a new thread.
That definitely passes the "of consequence" test.  ;-)

Jerry, KE7ER


On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Mike aka KC2WVB wrote:

I can't say I like the tone of some of the comments found in the end-fed antenna threads. I am also reminded of a friend of mine who holds a PHD in electrical engineering who claims most EE's without advanced degrees really don't know anything other than the algorithms they have learned to take on faith and that when things get too difficult what they have taken as gospel is not necessarily the case.

 

In 500 BC the belief held by the knowledgeable including Plato was that any distance between two points was either an integer value or a ratio of integers. They could not see how it was not as they saw it. Likewise 2+3 does not necessarily equal 5 for depending on the circumstances 2+3 may equal zero. Also for any pair of numbers from a set it is not necessarily true that an order relation exists such that one is less, equal, or greater than the other and I am sure there are those that do not see how that can be but indeed it can be the case. It is when contradictions manifest themselves that do not coincide with cherished beliefs that new understanding is found and rather than sit on one's high horse looking down on those that challenge old ideas the really great thinkers of the ages have found the greater understanding that is waiting if one has courage to look.

Mike,

Amen.  Math and all are needed and useful.  Models based on them can lie. 
Reason garbage in nets garbage out.    And some cases the math is completely 
valid and correct but you can't make one.  

The best case of that I know as an engineer is "non Foster Matching"  it works
on paper but try and make a circuit that emits negative reactance and is stable.
The real world runs on paper but electrons don't care a whit.

Allison
 

A crappy design that sometimes works is indeed crappy.
But don't confuse that with a crappy copy of a good design.

At any rate, truly figuring out exactly why something is crappy can be time well spend.  
The stock uBitx is not top drawer in some respects.
But it has been well worth my time, I've learned a lot. 

Jerry, KE7ER


On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Gordon Gibby wrote:

Crappy designs are not worth wasting your time on unless you really don’t mind having a lower chance of success—-which is probably just fine for many people! It is well worth THEIR time!!