In article ,
(Mark Keith) wrote:

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...

Well it did not make sense to me. One thing was said and then the
contrary was stated, then the the one sided discussion went off on
another tangent and then on to some thing else. The thread read like a
voyage of discovery and was not unlike babbling.


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

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

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?

Sorry Markey I'm not playing rec.radio.amateur.antenna game. Go play
with the other "Professional Trolls."

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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 article ,
(Mark Keith) wrote:


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...


Well it did not make sense to me. One thing was said and then the
contrary was stated, then the the one sided discussion went off on
another tangent and then on to some thing else. The thread read like a
voyage of discovery and was not unlike babbling.


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


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

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?

Sorry Markey I'm not playing rec.radio.amateur.antenna game. Go play
with the other "Professional Trolls."


Actually, Mark is right. For small loops it shouldn't make any
difference according to the theory in the Antenna Engineering
Handbook. Shielding larger loops may help deepen the null, which
is good for direction finding, but it isn't supposed to do anything
for small loops.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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

On 1 Nov 2004 22:33:56 -0800, (Mark Keith) wrote:

rec.radio.shortwave is the wrong ng for an antenna related debate????

Hi Mark,

Cool your jets. I once closely observed this group for a month and
found that less than 0.5% of the postings actually corresponded to
discussing Shortwave. Offering advice on antennas resides just below
the noise level and those who get tired of listening to that
background trash come here anyway.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In article ,
(Mark Keith) wrote:

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

Hey Markey here is how this is going to work.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:04:24 GMT, Telamon
wrote:
Hey Markey here is how this is going to work.
new-age fractal thinking

Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:04:24 GMT, Telamon
wrote:
Hey Markey here is how this is going to work.
new-age fractal thinking

Hummmm. Maybe so. I received an antenna design today in an e-mail. It
sure brings back memories of early fractal adventures I've heard
described. I suspect this antenna will be a huge hit among the simple
types who want an antenna that is easy to erect, but don't care how,
or if, it actually works according to plan. The antenna was designed
by KG5RQ, hence the name...No, it is not a slur against *the* G5RQ in
England, whoever he may be... MK
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k/g5rq.jpg

Telamon wrote in message

Hey Markey here is how this is going to work.

Plonk

What a chicken **** Telley is.... MK

MK,

What you may be missing, is that the 'average' End-User of the
Coax Cable [Shielded] Shortwave Listener's (SWL) Loop Antenna
is simply 'interested' in the "Practical Application" and RESULTS
Gain from using [The Device].

Their "Focus Is:
* How To Build/Buy It.
* How To Use It.
* What To Expect From It.

The 'target' "Reader" of the 'original' "Post" was the everyday
Shortwave Listener { No License Required } .

Know Your Reader - Communicate Effectively - KISAP !
[ Keep It Simple And Practical ! ]

REMEMBER: What Works... WORKS ! { No Theory Required }

iane ~ RHF
..
..
= = = (Mark Keith) wrote in message
= = = . com...
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