On 30 May, 11:17, Irv Finkleman wrote:
art wrote:
On 30 May, 09:27, "Jimmie D" wrote:

"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

I read a comment attributed to Cebik where he stated that any
antenna that is not 1/4, 5/8, 1/2 or 1 wave length is not much of an
antenna !
This is a false statement especially when one considers an antenna

Art, why is it that you make statement like this and never give a reference
to where you got it?

Why is it that you also continually do what you do?
I read it on E ham which is why why I used the word "atributed"
You can always read up on Cebik's pages but what is important to you,
the relevant antenna facts or who to point your finger at?
Art

E-ham is a pretty big site. Can you direct us to where you read it please?

Irv VE6BP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Irv,
I remember reading the article "Dipole or Tripole" plus the
readers follow up comments but that is all
I will have to go back and research for the comment again.
You used the word "please" which is not typical of this group
so I will get right on it tonight and get back to you.
I had a quick hunt just now and came across a discussion
as to why the word "Pole" does not belong when talking
about antennas. I got in to great difficulty with that term
in my earlier years because physics constantly refers to
dipoles as "Dipole" irrespective of size ( Di = 2, pole equales
electrical poles") I got into trouble again on this newsgroup
again with re4spect to the use of that term from a couple of
posters. Sometimes it seems that you just cannot win!
Very best regards
Art