In message , Reg Edwards
writes
Dear Ian,

It's early in the morning. I havn't had time and I don't want to take much
time thinking about your rather slightly surprising comments.


You have completely misunderstood, gone off at a tangent, about my motives
in my very few writings on the subject of baluns.


I have never made recommendations about old-wives tales, whatever you think
they are, except, just in effect, to ignore them.


You, apparently, have now (quite mistakenly I venture to add) included
yourself amongst them.


Have you any shares in balun manufacturers? After all baluns are the only
thing left for old-wives and salesmen to haggle about. Don't bother
answering.


In conclusion, unless people can specify, in numerical terms, what is their
problem, then there's no hope of sensibly aquiring a balun of any sort. And
I have never yet met anybody who has so specified.

I feel guilty at prolonging such a trivial matter. But it's such an early
hour of the day. Havn't had breakfast yet!

A very good morning to you Ian.
---
Reg, G4FGQ


Evenin' Reg.
Not disagreeing with you at all. Just nit-picking about your less than
immaculate grammar!

My only problem with baluns is not understanding the obsession with the
4:1 or 9:1 transformation ratio.

73, Ian.
--