Mark Keith wrote:

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Cecil, It is extremely hard to follow this thread as many comparisons
are vague i.e. frequency, length of antenna e.t.c.
You are not helping things when you talk of a 130 foot dipole and its
use on ten meters. I think calling that antenna a dipole is misleading
to say the least

In the Marine Corps, they call this a cluster#$%^...MK

Sorry, but in Texas, two wires are the same as two (conductive) poles.
We conceive our poles as fishing poles, and go on from there. :-)
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Cecil, It is extremely hard to follow this thread as many comparisons
are vague i.e. frequency, length of antenna e.t.c.
You are not helping things when you talk of a 130 foot dipole and its
use on ten meters. I think calling that antenna a dipole is misleading
to say the least

In the Marine Corps, they call this a cluster#$%^...MK

Sorry, but in Texas, two wires are the same as two (conductive) poles.
We conceive our poles as fishing poles, and go on from there. :-)

Actually, it's not calling it a dipole that bothers me...:/ MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k