On 7 Nov, 07:46, Richard Clark wrote:
A herd of two:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:16:44 -0800, art wrote:
On 7 Nov, 07:07, John Smith wrote:
a 160m antenna can be difficult to vertically polarize!

No it isn't.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:23:03 -0800, John Smith



wrote:
Even a vertical DLM antenna can be a challenge
...
the DLM being a notable exception.

You two crack me up. Do you guys butter your toast on both sides so
when it falls to the ground only one side gets fuzzy? At least the
fuzzy side doesn't degrade masticating efficiency by sticking to the
roof of your mouth.

You crack me up too
I was just reading all your posts to John E Davis on the
gauss statics law all over again.
All handwaving about mathematics but you presented
nothing that over rides his math.
No math or is it no mass?
You got your adults degree based on your journeys in the Navy
but that didn't provide you with a mathematics regimen
to fault Davis did it?
You never wrote anything that wasn't "fuzzy"
Whant to prove my initial post in error
or return to your fuzzy logic suitably scrambled
so that it cannot be deciferred?
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error
but then you can't so you will resort to handwaving.
Yes, Krauss, Maxwell Gauss and many many others support it
but you, you are not equipped to oppose