On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:24:07 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

OK one more time.

Hi Yuri,

Of all things, "one more time" is boringly trivial. Put it in your
sweetheart diary, lock that sucker up, and put it back under your
pillow. You have not adequately specified anything, and your comments
about efficiency, performance and the rest (if in fact there was
anything else) are castles in the air.

There is really no point of arguing any more here.

And yet this is the entire point of your having posted anything, isn't
it?

I will do the tests and
with help of "our campers" we will present comprehensive article on the
subject.

Why would anyone believe in a future of full disclosure when you
obviously have such difficulty with simpler topics now?

I offered very simple questions, all about very specific
characteristics of ONE antenna. This antenna was YOUR choice to
introduce the topic. This antenna was YOUR source of data for all
comments that flowed for 10000 postings ever after. You have had more
than 2 years to fill in the gaps about ONE antenna. The minimum among
these ANTENNA questions was:

1. How high?

2. What drive point Z?

3. What frequency for the combination of all elements?

Now as to the particulars of loading:

1. How long a coil?

2. How many turns in that coil?

3. How long are the radials?

Now as to your efficiency/performance claims:

1. What is the efficiency of a bare radiator without loading?

2. What is the efficiency of the loaded antenna you presented at your
page?

3. What is the performance criteria of a bare radiator?

4. What was the performance response of the loaded radiator you
presented at your page?

We roll on to test proclamations about linear loading:

1. Let's simply skip this as being obviously tainted by so much
missing information as to be irresolvable from more old wives' tales.

Everyone of these questions is easily answered with a simple number.

Everyone of these questions is commonplace discussion for technical
examination.

You have answered NONE of these questions. Or was it just one, 92
inches tall? You couldn't even get that one right because the picture
ON YOUR PAGE obviously showed a bigger one!

You apparently think you can treat us like fools and that this is
enough to prove:

What's next? Denying that there is a daylight, when the sun is out?

Yuri, you don't have the horsepower to win the race of wits.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC