Owen Duffy wrote:
Well, I guess you are guessing at what Fred meant.

Nope, not a guess. Fred and I are on the same wavelength. :-)
We use the same "notuner" method for resonating our antenna
systems.

That is his misinterpretation if that is the case. I did not say an
"average ham", but I assert that it is not all that uncommon to have a
ham antenna located at 100m or more, and the ROT falls down.

But it is indeed extremely uncommon for an *American* amateur
radio operator to have a feedline that is 100m long. I personally
know of only a handfull of cases in my 55 years of hamming and
most of those involved getting vhf/uhf antennas to the top of a hill.

Thing is, about averages, is that the detail you throw away to
calculate the average may have been relevant.

It may be relevant to a "rocket scientist", such as yourself, and
completely irrelevant and indeed beyond the understanding of the
average ham who must necessarily rely upon rules of thumb.

It is quite feasible to place an antenna at longer distances if you
want, ...

~99.99% of hams don't want to. Why make things more difficult?

It is the unstated length assumption (of apparently 75') of your ROT
that makes limits its validity to the people who are most likely to
lap it up.

Sorry to disagree, the great majority of "people who are most likely
to lap it up" are people with 60-100 foot feedlines. Most assertions
on this newsgroup are in the context of the average ham.

Owen, it's obvious that you deliberately picked 100 meters to try to
prove a point that you couldn't make otherwise. You chose an inferior
ladder-line that I wouldn't even allow on my property. Your attempts to
save face by dragging the discussion down some primrose path involving
minute details is interesting but not interesting enough to follow
you down said path.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp