View Single Post
  #38   Report Post  
Old March 7th 08, 12:20 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
[email protected] nm5k@wt.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 757
Default 'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA

On Mar 6, 4:49 pm, Derek wrote:


Spoken like a true neanderthal, they also refused to embrace new ways
of doing things and look what happened to them.
You are living in the past, keep on digging.

Derek


Well, where is the beef? Do you have any actual data to support
these magic claims? Hummm.. Thought not..
I'm using actual experience with antennas to support
my disbelief. If what he says is true, I'd likely already
be using one.. I'm not against a dinky 160m antenna
with full size performance. But until I actually see
one work... Well, you might get it, or you might not..

How can I live in the past? I can only remember the past.
And *nowhere* in the past have I ever seen such a
device actually work as claimed.
So put up the data, or you get to digging...
You kind of remind me of that "Bret" dude who calls himself
John Smith, or whatever... :/
I'd rather be a slopehead than believe in the tooth fairy,
free lunches, and antennas that don't follow the rules
of science.
I have no doubt his antenna may radiate some..
But then again, most dummy loads do also..
Tales of QSO's using light bulb dummy loads used to be
quite common back in the past, which I can still remember
going back to the time of swatting at colorful plastic butterflies
hanging above my head in my baby crib.
MK