Richard Clark wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:36:54 GMT, "Jimmy"
wrote:


ART, I too have lost portions of my antenna due to ice storms, I was able to
retune and still operate my station with the damaged antenna. Howeever ther
is no way I could tell you if it was better or worse as no reference had
benn previously established for comparison. I seriously doubt if those
others that this has happened to had a chance to establish some meaningful
reference either.
I too am familar with the statement reguarding spacing between the ends of
the antenna. I find it both amusing and incredible that anyone could take
this to mean that cutting off the ends of the antenna will cause an increase
in gain.



Hi Jimmy,

Anecdotal evidence is what sells antennas like the eh, even in the
face of their higher efficiency claims resulting in 30dB poorer
signals.

The argument for clipping off "unused" parts of antennas (especially
yagis) is a howler. It is much like a suggestion to paint out the
parts of the telescope lens that you don't look through. Would the
telescope still work? On the boresight perhaps (no field of view, but
with no more magnification for it though), with less light (you can
only use it at local noon), and more fringing (artifacts due to BW
restriction). No doubt there would be someone to offer glowing
testimonial to that advance in science that so confounds the experts.
(And waiting for a Patent publication for special telescope
enhancement paint.)

Well Richard, have you not heard of the famous aperture mask? Reduces
the aperture of the telescope, and there are people that swear by them!

And, they don't work either. Your analogy is quite correct.

At best they can improve apparent contrast. But at a reduction in detail.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Well Richard, have you not heard of the famous aperture mask?
Reduces the aperture of the telescope, and there are people that swear
by them!

And, they don't work either.

Mine works well to reduce the light from the moon to a comfortable
viewing level for my 18" diameter reflecting mirror.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:24:34 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:
Well Richard, have you not heard of the famous aperture mask?
Reduces the aperture of the telescope, and there are people that swear
by them!

And, they don't work either.

Mine works well to reduce the light from the moon to a comfortable
viewing level for my 18" diameter reflecting mirror.

So do moonglasses.

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
Mine works well to reduce the light from the moon to a comfortable
viewing level for my 18" diameter reflecting mirror.

So do moonglasses.

If you don't mind looking like a dorky nerd. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----