Low-angle Elevation Gain of a 1/4-wave Vertical Monopole
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:24:30 -0800 (PST), Richard Fry wrote:

Then your NEC analysis is not a _FAR-FIELD_ NEC analysis, as
repeatedly I have referenced in my posts, and even as is shown in your
quote of the same point, above.

So, how do we parse your reply? (ad nauseum).
____________

It is clear that your interest in this thread has turned to playing
word games.

But not with me, anymore.

RF

Low-angle Elevation Gain of a 1/4-wave Vertical Monopole
 

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 02:54:09 -0800 (PST), Richard Fry
wrote:

It is clear that your interest in this thread has turned to playing
word games.

This confirms my earlier observation that you had no support for one
rather meek word game from you:
...NEC far-field analysis this would seem impossible,
due to the greatly reduced fields in this sector ....
your statement (now statements) lacks quantifiables. "Impossible" is
yellow-journalism fluff and the less than 1dB variations I have
reported are within the accumulation of field errors of the "possible"
that went into engineering reports. "Impossible" and "possible" are,
to all intents and purposes, describing the same thing.

What is it that is impossible? Or is this about seeming?

If you cannot support your own statements with quantifiables, I can
see why you shy from further pale elaboration.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Low-angle Elevation Gain of a 1/4-wave Vertical Monopole
 

Richard Fry wrote:

...
It is clear that your interest in this thread has turned to playing
word games.

But not with me, anymore.

RF

Yes, exactly! He is like that, yanno? wink

Regards,
JS