Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49474 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2004 11:29:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore01.plus.net) (192.168.71.1) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 23 Jul 2004 11:29:19 -0000 Received: from [192.168.67.2] (helo=ptb-mxcore02.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1BnyFP-0008Hr-Iy for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:29:55 +0100 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1BnyEn-000Ip9-1n for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:29:17 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1BnyEQ-0004RA-Hz for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:28:54 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1BnyEQ-0004R1-6p for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:28:54 +0100 Received: from one.surfree.co.uk ([195.80.0.234]) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BnyEM-0006In-Qc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:28:54 +0100 Received: from standalone ([212.248.140.4]) by one.surfree.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA14212 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:26:38 +0100 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:25:26 +0100 Message-ID: <01C470B0.228BAA70.actalbot@southsurf.com> From: Andy To: "'rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org'" Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:25:00 +0100 Importance: high X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Organization: UKNWN(UK) X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,RCVD_IN_SORBS=0.1,X_PRIORITY_HIGH=0.516 Subject: RE: LF: Re: Loops v Verticals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=X_PRIORITY_HIGH autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Well... That may not always be the case. If experimentation disagrees with theory you need to check that everything is accounted for, before assuming the theory is wrong and reworking it. It is too easy to overlook some seemingly trivial little thing or ignore the seemingly obvious. Like baluns on antenna measurements - just as an example. I've often found that theory based on back of envelope calculations, made from first principles, has this annoying habit of often being surprisingly accurate. Andy 'JNT -----Original Message----- From: Stewart Bryant [SMTP:stewart@g3ysx.org.uk] Sent: 2004/07/23 09:12 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re: Loops v Verticals Quite right. Experimental evidence is the only way to resolve the issue. If the experiment agrees with theory, then that is good. If it does not, then it is the theory that needs to be extended or abandoned. - Stewart G3YSX