Symmetrical pattern antennas

There are four questions on Element 4 that are annoying me: E9D03, E9D19, E9D20, and E9D21. All four of these are of the form "What is the beamwidth of a symmetrical pattern antenna with a gain of x dB as compared to an isotropic radiator?". I've reasonably concluded that I am to assume I am asked to find the apex angle of a solid cone that cuts the unit sphere yielding a solid angle equal to the reciprocal of the gain represented by x dB.

I derived a formula for this: first, convert dB to gain: g = 10^x/10; second, find solid angle: Ω = 4π/g; third, find apex angle corresponding to solid angle: θ = 2 cos^-1 (1-2Ω). The problem is that this formula does not yield the "correct" answers.

I discovered that this formula is off by a constant factor of 1.05 dB. That is, if I add 1.05 dB to the gain before doing the calculations above, my approach above yields answers that are correct within significant figures. What I don't understand is where the 1.05 dB is coming from.

I'm just going to memorize the answers for the test; there are only four of these questions and it's not all that likely that I'll get even one of them, let alone two, so even if I do flub them it isn't terribly likely affect my chances of passing. But I'm annoyed that reason has gotten me this close, and no closer. Anyone who understands this stuff have an explanation?

Data absorption

I've been studying up for FCC Part 97 elements 2, 3, and 4 the past week, which is part of why I haven't been writing as much here. Anyway, earlier this evening I took the practice tests (over at AA9PW's practice site) and passed all three; while I usually pass the Technician test, the General test has been hit or miss up to now and I've never passed the Extra test before. Another couple weeks of study with mnemosyne and I ought to be able to "enter at Extra".

The cult rolls on

It's interesting how Wikimedia's immune system works. The latest news is that Danny Wool, who of late has done a very interesting job of exposing the Foundation's tender underbelly, has had his access to the "admins-only" IRC channel revoked by James Forrester. James is the same Jimmy-cheerleader who fired me from my role as #wikipedia channel deputy contact back in December without any coherent explanation and despite the fact that nobody (other than White Cat) who actually used the channel was complaining about me. Danny is a widely respected contributor to the English Wikipedia and, of course, an admin. James claims that the removal was "implementing the will of the channel" but really represents a backroom discussion amongst the kool-aid drinkers. He also claimed that Danny "cannot be trusted" because "he leaks info".

The simple fact is that Danny, like myself, has been branded a suppressive person and must be marginalized or eliminated.

I used to like James, but in the past several months he's clearly revealed himself as one of those who have been bamboozled by Jimmy's cultish charm. Sad.

I'd like to remind all Wikipedians that you have the right to fork and the right to leave. It's time to exercise those rights, people. Your community leadership doesn't care about you.

Can't they do anything right?

It seems that the Foundation made an error when it filed its annual report back in May 2007 when Jimmy stepped down as chairman and was replaced by Florence. For some reason, the paperwork filed with the Florida Secretary of State listed Jimmy as the Executive Chair (EC), a position which would give him final authority over practically all matters related to Foundation affairs. (He should instead have been deleted entirely; the role of "Emeritus Chair" has no legal significance and would not have been reported to the State of Florida.) Because of this error, Florence is legally unable to act with executive authority for the Foundation; only Jimmy has that power.

I sincerely hope that Mike Godwin will be filing the appropriate paperwork to correct this error post haste. I imagine the Secretary of State will allow for this to be filed retroactively; there's no way this could be anything other than a simple clerical error by Wikimedia's obviously inexperienced personnel. This was, after all, filed after Danny and Brad had left, and before Sue came on, so the Foundation was stumbling along with just Carolyn (her signature appears on the bottom of the document, after all) and a handful of office clerical workers and no legal counsel, so a mistake like this is perfectly understandable.

There is, of course, no way that this could have been a deliberate deception by Jimmy to secretly retain power, as our dear friends at Valleywag suggest...

Codes of conduct

Some of you may recall that, some time back, our dear Deputy Leader Erik Möller attempted a bald-faced character assassination of Danny Wool by alleging that we bloggers should adhere to Tim O'Reilly's proposed "blogger code of conduct". I objected to this at the time, and invited Erik to a discussion about that code. Erik, unsurprisingly did not comment.

Today, Geoff Burling has done me the favor (incidentally, I'm sure) of obviating any need on my part to reply further. He's put forth a most eloquent (pun intended) response to Erik's underhanded call, one far more eloquent that I could ever hope for. Do read it.

(I promise, we will return to the article quality evaluations soon. I am somewhat cheered by a report from the field that people are, at least, editing Valentine's Day, although I haven't looked to see if they're improving it....)