|
|
Telamon wrote in message
It is a good example of why I do not read rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Anything you read in it has about a 50% chance of being correct. It is up to you to figure out which is right. If I want to read a thesis, I'll crack a textbook where I stand a better chance of not being misled. With technical articles, I also do not have to deal with terms like, myth, oldwives tails, or requests for citations and the like. And r.r.s differs from this how? They spread just as much crap here, as they do there....Probably more...And much more OT's and radio whacko's to boot...BTW, I happen to agree with the "thesis". I don't believe in "low noise" antennas. Anyone who believes a shielded loop is "quieter" than a non shielded loop needs a reality check. So in that, I'm glad he posted the "thesis". Old wives tales need to be shot down.....Over and over...Until dead. :( BTW, I don't have a cessna citation, so they will be out of luck in that dept...I do fly a lear 31a on my simulator a lot though. MK |
|
Telamon wrote:
Generally, the air of pretense does not exist in RRS, as people here do not claim to be other than nonprofessional on the subject. I am a professional shortwave listener, as my mother once gave me a dime to go listen to the radio. -- So those 380 tons of missing explosives were moved by Saddam before all those expert inspectors noticed, eh? No wonder twelve years of inspections found NOTHING. |
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:36:56 GMT, Telamon
wrote: Well, OK there is just as much crap here but the posts in RRS do not usually turn into a "thesis" or degenerate into soap operatic techno babble with the usual cast of characters. What a lot of whining. Is this another episode of "As the World DXs?" Learn to turn off the cross posting when you should be taking this to your chaplain. |
Telamon wrote in message
Well, OK there is just as much crap here but the posts in RRS do not usually turn into a "thesis" or degenerate into soap operatic techno babble with the usual cast of characters. Where was the technobabble? It made sense to me... Generally, the air of pretense does not exist in RRS, as people here do not claim to be other than nonprofessional on the subject. Well, some on rraa *are* professionals. But again, many are not. I am not. My work has nothing at all to do with radio, antennas... Oh yeah and you are wrong about the shielded loop. Oh yeah? Prove it. I've built both, and tested both, and I couldn't tell a lick of difference. I have also used both shielded loops and plain wire loops for the "coupling" loop that feeds a regular wire loop. Again, no difference in noise pickup. None whatsoever. If I am wrong, why don't I see the results? I'm not just barking at the moon. I've built and compared both types just to test this exact theory. Both of my present loops are now plain wire. Don't you think that if there were really an advantage to a shielded loop, I would be using them? My mama didn't raise a total fool. If I see something that works according to common lore, I'll say so. If it doesn't , I'll say that too...So far, I haven't seen it... It's still my opinion that the shielded loops *do* help ensure balance in feeding, but as far as a magical "anti noise" property, I don't see it. If you feed the plain wire loop in a manner that also ensures the same balance, both antennas will respond to any noise in the same manner. You can disagree, which is fine, but until I see proof of this magical anti noise property in real life, I will continue to claim the *lower noise with a shielded loop theory* is a bunch of malarky... MK |
|
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:48:48 GMT, Telamon
wrote: Besides you have have already stated experimental results contrary to basic theory Hi Mark, This presents much the situation that W. C. Fields offered when he stated "I've got the Bull by the Tail, and I am facing the problem." The fellow hasn't the high beams to switch off cross-posting. Let this Tritonic Minnow rule his puddle. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Telamon wrote in message
No, I'm not proving basic theory and design to you over Usenet. This is the wrong newsgroup for that. Go play in rec.radio.amateur.antenna rec.radio.shortwave is the wrong ng for an antenna related debate???? And we are talking about a receive antenna used by many MWL's, not one used by hams for transmitting. Wrong NG??? ****, all that off topic crap must have warped your frigging brain.... I guess if it ain't off topic, or written by some ignorant SOB that just wants to stir up controversy about Bush/Kerry "dumb and dumber", it don't belong....Get a grip... Besides you have have already stated experimental results contrary to basic theory and practice to your own satisfaction. How am I going to challenge that? By providing contrasting experimemental results or data... How else??? Are you presently under experimental medication, or are you normally this slow? Sorry Markey I'm not playing rec.radio.amateur.antenna game. Go play with the other "Professional Trolls." Well, Telley, I take this to mean you can't provide contrasting results or data to refute my claims...Fine. Go play with yourself then. But every time I see you cut down rraa for no good reason, as you have seen you do a few times recently, I'm gonna jump your ass like stink on a turd. If you can't take the heat, keep out of the kitchen. No one has a gun to your head, making you read certain posts, even if crossposted. And if you disagree with someones "thesis", why don't you just provide contrasting data or results to refute his claims. Seems it would be more useful that acting like a jackass, and calling him a troll, thesis writer, or whatever goofball tag you want to attach. MK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com