I must point out that although my exchange with you has been short and
seemingly pointless; you feel a necessity to place yourself in prominence,
of both your "knowledge", opinions and your person.

I hardly wish you to keep up with such tiring and pointless expenditure of
energy on your part--I have found you to only be self-serving in your
devotion to your ego, yourself and your personal endeavors to make a fool of
yourself and destroy any sense of dignity one might have been able to afford
you.

I can only speak for myself of course, but you have completely destroyed any
credibility I could have granted you and, would only accept any offerings
from you after having checked them through other sources--since this is the
case, little is to be had from giving you any further considerations at all.



Regards


--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:38:49 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

Terman also says
nothing about a Helical wound slim jim. Of course, this begs the
question "Why would he?"

The results are predictable, boringly so, and several have already
been down that road to no net gain. However, common sense in these
matters can be discarded if only someone offers validation, however
slim that may be from any jim. Such inventors stand on the shoulders
of dwarfs. Sorry for the allusion, as it again reprises the obvious
that physical height in relation to a standard (wavelength) dominates
the principle. However as principles and seeking validation go, no
doubt the topic will drift towards top loading dwarfs....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:34:08 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

So far you have not provided support for your statements on this subject
from any recognized antenna authority. Do you really believe that your
understanding of this, and your statements about it are better/more accurate
than those of Frederick Terman and George Brown?

Hi OM,

What you demand is simply a lazy form of leaning on authority without
presuming to investigate the principles involved. I am not interested
in top loading dwarfs or in replacing simple insights with name
dropping and personalities.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
So far you have not provided support for your statements on this subject
from any recognized antenna authority. Do you really believe that your
understanding of this, and your statements about it are better/more
accurate
than those of Frederick Terman and George Brown?

What you demand is simply a lazy form of leaning on authority without
presuming to investigate the principles involved. I am not interested
in top loading dwarfs or in replacing simple insights with name
dropping and personalities.
________________

From your post above we must take it that you have investigated what
Brown/Terman have to say on this subject, and can prove them wrong. If you
wish your statements to be believed above theirs, you will need to show your
work. Immortality awaits.

RF

John
Cut off the conversation, it is not worth it.
Richard just loves to fight and show how smart he is and
if this doesn't work, which is generally, the case he goes
on a personal attack.
Generally he is not worth the attention.
And the more agitated he gets the more he reverts to use of
the long words instead of short words and scrambles his answers
so all are confused as to what he is saying, why he is saying it as
well as what benefit he thinks he is supplying by typing it.
The bottom line is that his intention is to destroy the integrity
of his opponent rather than to assist with courtesy.
And rest assured, he views all as an oponnent
Just making a point
No reply required
Regards
Art


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Apparently, I am not like you, I don't have all the answers and am just
sitting here ready to educate all the poor ignorant masses who have
questions.
I am amazed my motives can even be brought into question, to the
intelligent, I have suspected would be obvious.
I am interested in what others know, or think they know--I am interested
in things I do NOT yet know..
While if I am able to help someone with information in my possession--I
will quite willingly do so, however, I first need to gain this
information.
Somehow, from all your posts, I am left with the impression you were
probably born knowing all the answers and, if not, you are now in the
possession of such and, all others serve only as an anoyance to you--so I
can see how you would puzzle over some ignorant A$$ such as myself.

Regards
--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:00:30 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:
Rather, back to my original question (your ADD--attention defecit
disorder
is showing), "Anyone ever done a helical wound "Slim Jim?""

Hi "Jack,"

I suppose it has to be said if this is going anywhe Yes.

Is this 20 questions, or do you have any answers for yourself?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Wasn't George Brown one of the ancient trio of experimenters who laid
out 118.5 radials but all three forgot to measure the most important
characteristics - ground conductivity and permittivity!

John, I just love your logical assembly and choice of words. It flows.
Too good for amateur radio.

I wish I had your vocabulary.
----
Reg.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:21:52 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

Interesting... so electrical length is affecting gain and EZNEC supports
it--that will probably silence those who claim the physical length is all
important... ya suppose?

Regards

..07 DB might be gain, but I somehow get the feeling that I would never
notice it on my HF rig. What would that gain represent on a 1000
watts? I don't know the formula, just the generalization that 3 db =
double power.


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

True, it is only "proof of concept." However, the longest journey begins
but with the first step...
Regards

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Buck" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:21:52 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

Interesting... so electrical length is affecting gain and EZNEC supports
it--that will probably silence those who claim the physical length is all
important... ya suppose?

Regards

.07 DB might be gain, but I somehow get the feeling that I would never
notice it on my HF rig. What would that gain represent on a 1000
watts? I don't know the formula, just the generalization that 3 db =
double power.


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

In some situations it is better to have a 'shortened' antenna than the
absolute last tiniest fraction of a db. I realize a cap hat can
reduce the size of a vertical with reasonably low loss, I am wondering
if it would do as well with the J-Pole?

For example, a quarter wave matching network for the J-Pole would be
whatever works best, be it original design or some form of balun, but
the 1/2 wave vertical might be reduced in size by forming a capacity
hat above it.

How well would that work for shortening a J-Pole? would it be better
to use a shortened 1/2 wave dipole or would the J-Pole design be
better?

Buck

--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Becareful Buck!!! It is catching, you are starting to think like me!

Regards

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this har disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Buck" wrote in message
...
In some situations it is better to have a 'shortened' antenna than the
absolute last tiniest fraction of a db. I realize a cap hat can
reduce the size of a vertical with reasonably low loss, I am wondering
if it would do as well with the J-Pole?

For example, a quarter wave matching network for the J-Pole would be
whatever works best, be it original design or some form of balun, but
the 1/2 wave vertical might be reduced in size by forming a capacity
hat above it.

How well would that work for shortening a J-Pole? would it be better
to use a shortened 1/2 wave dipole or would the J-Pole design be
better?

Buck

--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW