Richard Clark wrote:
No, again you failed, the answer was yours 6 MILLION Angstroms. There
is no such glare wavelength.

I already admitted it was a mistake caused by macular degeneration.
Guess you would rather I be completely blind, eh? I thought I was reading
the frequency of visible red. I don't carry such things around in my
head. Hardly any amateur radio operator does.

"Glare wavelength" is just a logical diversion from your lack of knowledge
about interference. The wavelength of glare matters not one iota to the core
of the technical discussion that you are trying to avoid at all costs. Why
do you disagree with J. C. Slater who understood interference probably
before you ever wet your diapers?
--
73, Cecil, 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! =-----