Tom, I am just guessing, but are you referring to medicinal marijuanna?
grin

Regards

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


"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:09:27 GMT, "
wrote:


Just making a point


Hi Art,

You could use a blunt. 73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I'm guessing that you have no idea what you said in semi-current
slang.

tom
K0TAR

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:31:13 -0600, Tom Ring
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:09:27 GMT, "
wrote:


Just making a point


Hi Art,

You could use a blunt.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I'm guessing that you have no idea what you said in
semi-current slang.

Hi Tom,

Guessing and supposing seem to be de Rigueur. Let's look at it
through deconstruction (the convolutions of language used here are to
thin out the shallow end of the grammatical pool) and let me ask:
"Considering your reaction, Art's stimulus by which I made my
suggestion, and the comment itself: does all this maintain a
consistent, internal logic?"

If I were to deconstruct further, I would offer the query:
"How current is semi?"

If we reach back beyond the currency of semi (say 3 or more decades);
then I would have offered Art:
"Keep a tight ass hole."
and it would have still come from the same culture.

Now, at the risk of having to "explain" to a generation that demands
facts and references, and then shows so little inclination to actually
apply them (this does not mean you by the way as you have been
adventurous enough to probably have made connections anyway); then my
short answer would be:
"You've guessed wrong." (which is a far more commonplace outcome
by virtue of this preponderance of guessing, presuming, and supposing
instead of testing, analyzing, and examining).

5 points to the one who can name the source to the ancient (nearly 40
year old) quote offered. 5 extra points if you can provide the
context (fictional character) who employs it. And 10 points bonus if
you can name (fictional character) who it is applied to.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark"
5 points to the one who can name the source to the ancient (nearly
40 year old) quote offered. 5 extra points if you can provide the
context (fictional character) who employs it. And 10 points bonus if
you can name (fictional character) who it is applied to.
__________________

Using scientific texts and methods rather than a thesaurus and fictional
references to try to make your points here would serve you (and the rest of
us) better.

Or you might wish to move to alt.english.usage, and see if those folks are
impressed.

RF

Richard Clark wrote:


If I were to deconstruct further, I would offer the query:
"How current is semi?"

1 decade.


If we reach back beyond the currency of semi (say 3 or more decades);
then I would have offered Art:
"Keep a tight ass hole."
and it would have still come from the same culture.

Now, at the risk of having to "explain" to a generation that demands
facts and references, and then shows so little inclination to actually
apply them (this does not mean you by the way as you have been
adventurous enough to probably have made connections anyway); then my
short answer would be:
"You've guessed wrong." (which is a far more commonplace outcome
by virtue of this preponderance of guessing, presuming, and supposing
instead of testing, analyzing, and examining).

5 points to the one who can name the source to the ancient (nearly 40
year old) quote offered. 5 extra points if you can provide the
context (fictional character) who employs it. And 10 points bonus if
you can name (fictional character) who it is applied to.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Hmm, I'd say about 61 years +-1 on the quote, and I couldn't guess who
used it 40 years ago.

And blunt is now a drug reference if you haven't kept up.

So who was it that recycled the combat advice?

tom
K0TAR

"Reg Edwards" wrote..
Sorry Richard. I never refer to sources. Except perhaps Ohm.
There's no way of guaranteeing reliability. I work things out for
myself so you'll just have to take my word for it.

I have a remarkably small book library. Although I did buy a
second-hand copy of Terman in 1947 which I still occasionally browse
through when I'm running short of ideas. He's most comprehensive.
Which accounts for his continued popularity. But he's not God.
______________

I suspect that your statement above that you never refer to sources doesn't
mean that all of your considerable knowledge is the result of your original
investigations. Even your countryman Stephen Hawking credits his sources
when he writes of scientific topics.

Terman's (Brown's) statements about the elevation patterns of loaded
verticals have been proven empirically by MW radiators for 70 years or more.
There is nothing to argue about, and certainly no reason to take the word of
anyone not willing to show conclusively how this concept is invalid. One's
word is insufficient -- even if it comes from you and/or Richard Clark.

RF

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:43:34 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

Or you might wish to move to alt.english.usage, and see if those folks are
impressed.

Hi OM,

It's satisfying enough to see you're stunned. ;-)
That was the point of the sieve.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:09:17 -0600, Tom Ring
wrote:

Hmm, I'd say about 61 years +-1 on the quote, and I couldn't guess who
used it 40 years ago.

R. Crumb

And blunt is now a drug reference if you haven't kept up.

Whoosh, over your head.

So who was it that recycled the combat advice?

Combat? I suppose you are fishing for the point award answers.
In Order:
Mr. Natural,
Flakey Foont.

As Mr. Natural would offer:
"If you have to ask,
you're not really with it."

To close out this round of Cultural Awareness, a question from Dr.
Naturlich:
"What does Do Wa Diddy mean?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:09:17 -0600, Tom Ring
wrote:


Hmm, I'd say about 61 years +-1 on the quote, and I couldn't guess who
used it 40 years ago.


R. Crumb


And blunt is now a drug reference if you haven't kept up.


Whoosh, over your head.


Nope, I got that, just got more than that.


So who was it that recycled the combat advice?


Combat? I suppose you are fishing for the point award answers.
In Order:
Mr. Natural,
Flakey Foont.

Yes, combat - advice given to troops going to fight on the islands of
the Pacific. And I must have forgotten the re-use by Crumb; I used to
have all of them, way back when. I liked the Fabulous Furry Freak
Brothers better.


As Mr. Natural would offer:
"If you have to ask,
you're not really with it."

To close out this round of Cultural Awareness, a question from Dr.
Naturlich:
"What does Do Wa Diddy mean?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:25:57 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

One's
word is insufficient -- even if it comes from you and/or Richard Clark.

Hi OM,

And I presume you being the arbiter of what is right, then render
authority to make this citation sufficient to be proof of your
statement? :-)

I don't suppose you could rummage up a concurring opinion from Terman
or Mendenhall (whoops, talk about one citation flushed down the
dumper)? Such hubris.

If you deigned to offer this privelage equally, there would be no
arguments, would there?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"No it doesn`t! (Thus an antenna for which H=0.45 lambda can by suitable
top loading be made to have a field distribution in the vertical plane
of H=0.6 lambda.)"

Reg is right. Between two antennas there will always be differences.
But, as Richard Clark might say, "Does it make a Db of difference?" One
dB can easily be lost in measurement error.

Top loading has been around since at least 1909 when it was patented by
Simon Eisenstein of Kiev. Russia. See Fig 9-24 on page 9-17 of ON4UN`s
"Loe-Band DXing". Eisenstein shows current distribution on his patent
application. He gets the base current up as it might be in a full height
antenna.

I would believe what Terman wrote because I`ve never been able to
disprove anything he wrote. Now I look for my error in logic when
something of Terman`s seems wrong.

ON4UN says on page 9-29 of his 1994 edition of the Low-Band DXing book:
"Over sea-water the 5/8 wave has lost 0.8 dB of its gain already, the
1/4-wave only 0.4 dB." (It`s less than one dB).

Even a disappearingly small radiator produces radiation less than 1/2 dB
weaker than a 1/2-wave dipole, or a 1/4-wave vertical. In lossless
antennas, the only difference in radiated signal between the full length
antenna and a too-short antenna comes from the slight difference in
their patterns.

Short antennas have efficiency problems because they have low radiation
resistances. This low radiation reaistance goes not compare as well with
a given loss resistance as does the higher radiation resistance of the
full size antenna. However, great care can be taken with the too-short
antenna to minimize its loss resistance and get good efficiency.

You have only to consult the "ARRL Antenna Book" and compare a short
continusously loaded vertical`s performance with that of a full-size
1/4-wave vertical. In my 19th edition it`s on page 5-25:
"Fig 46-Helically wound ground-plane vertical. Performance from this
type of antenna is comparable to that of many full-size 1/4 vertical
antennas."

In 1949, I worked in a transmitting plant where two stations, KPRC, 950
KHz, and KXYZ, 1320 KHz, shared the same transmittinng tower. Both
stations had identical RCA 5-C, 5 KW transmitters. Regional coverage was
almost identical despite many more degrees in the tower at 1320 KHz than
at 950 KHz.

One of the operators at the stations was a ham. He was J.L. Davis,
W5LIT. J.L. had a new 1949 Ford with a cane pole bolted to the rear
bumper. The pole was wound nearly end to end with enameled wire to serve
as antenna for his mobile ham rig. He had no top hat at the tip of his
antenna, so sometimes when he was talking a high voltsage corona
discharge would plume from the top of his antenna. Very impressive
though no help to his QSO..

Bill Orr writes on page 78 of "Vertical Antennas":
"A helix length of about .05 wavelength or more provides good results as
a substitute for a full size quarter wavelength vertical antenna."

It worked for W5LIT.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI