Paladin wrote:
Thanks a lot, Mike

This antenna IS getting the best of me


I know what you mean, Paladin! And 160 meters is a real booger of a
band for most of us to have a horizontal antenna. There are loaded
antennas, but I suspect you want multiband performance. I suspect you
could tune a loaded antenna cut for 160 meters, but I'd also expect that
the radiation pattern on the highest bands would be a bit weird.

Speaking of weird, I wonder in anyone has made a multiband antenna,
loaded on 160, and trapped for the other bands? 8^)

What might be a good setup to get you on 160 meters and more would be a
vertical antenna. They are a compromise, but most top band antennas are.
AFAIC, they are a compromise on most of the other bands too. That is why
I have a dipole in addition to a Butternut HF6V.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Reg Edwards g4fgq,regp@ZZZbtinternet,com wrote:

Regarding the Smith Chart, I have myself never found it to be of any
use. In fact I don't know how to use it.

I have nothing to add to this thread other than to say that I thought
the above was an odd combination of sentences.

But enough about me. What are you doing about Bush?

Because he's my Commander-in-Chief I support him in every regard.
But aside from that, he's doing exactly what I'm paying him to do (with
respect to my federal taxes helping to pay his salary). He's a good man
but I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the liberal media to think
otherwise.

73 from Hawaii,
Jeff KH6O

--
Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

Thanks Rich, As we get closer to that dreaded season called
"Winter-wonderland"
I'll remember that idea on some cold'n blustery day! Don't even
have to climb
a step ladder to do that!

73's, Paladin

On 22/11/2005 1:46 AM, Jeffrey Herman wrote:
Reg Edwards g4fgq,regp@ZZZbtinternet,com wrote:
Regarding the Smith Chart, I have myself never found it to be of any
use. In fact I don't know how to use it.

I have nothing to add to this thread other than to say that I thought
the above was an odd combination of sentences.

'Tis odd, indeed.

But enough about me. What are you doing about Bush?

Because he's my Commander-in-Chief I support him in every regard.
But aside from that, he's doing exactly what I'm paying him to do (with
respect to my federal taxes helping to pay his salary). He's a good man
but I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the liberal media to think
otherwise.

Totally off topic, but you do know what "liberal" really means when used
to describe political ideals, right? I mean, you've looked it up as it
is used in political studies or anthropology? This word gets a lot of
use in today's polemics (especially in the US, where it has become quite
the loaded term) but it is usually misapplied in this context. To the
point of being used in the exact opposite from the definition. That is,
not just simple connotative slip.

(For some reason, the line from _The Princess Bride_ came to mind, "You
keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")

(Inconceivable!)

Also, I'm pretty sure you don't know your president personally, so it is
technically a fallacy to say "he is a good man." Perhaps you surmise
from his actions (or the second-hand, imperfect, reports of such
actions) that he has qualities you admire? The problem, of course, is
that just as many people could come to the opposite determination of the
president being a "bad man" by the very same actions. I mean, how does
one know if they are the one being brain-washed or not?

I'm also puzzled why one would espouse total support of a
"Commander-in-Chief" simply because he is "the Chief." I'm not singling
you out, as I see examples of this sentiment everywhere (i.e., not just
in the US.) It seems to go against the principles of democracy and
informed citizenry. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that such
a sentiment is more a fundamental marker of totalitarianism.

clvrmnky wrote:

Also, I'm pretty sure you don't know your president personally, so it is
technically a fallacy to say "he is a good man." Perhaps you surmise
from his actions (or the second-hand, imperfect, reports of such
actions) that he has qualities you admire? The problem, of course, is
that just as many people could come to the opposite determination of the
president being a "bad man" by the very same actions. I mean, how does
one know if they are the one being brain-washed or not?

Is saying bad things about people you don't know morally equivalent to
saying good things about them? Some people believe that if it is
repeated often enough and long enough, it will become so.

I'm also puzzled why one would espouse total support of a
"Commander-in-Chief" simply because he is "the Chief."

The not-so clvr mnky might consider that to those for whom the current
Commander-in-Chief is Commander-in-Chief, it's pretty clear whose side
he is on.

ac6xg

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:48:28 -0500, clvrmnky
wrote:

(For some reason, the line from _The Princess Bride_ came to mind, "You
keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")

(Inconceivable!)

Not having seen _The Princess Bride_, it would seem to be pointless to
be one in the context of _Inconceivable!_

"clvrmnky" bravely wrote to "All" (22 Nov 05 16:48:28)
--- on the heady topic of " feedlines and strange intereactions"

cl From: clvrmnky
cl Xref: core-easynews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:220293

cl On 22/11/2005 1:46 AM, Jeffrey Herman wrote:
Reg Edwards g4fgq,regp@ZZZbtinternet,com wrote:
Regarding the Smith Chart, I have myself never found it to be of any
use. In fact I don't know how to use it.

I have nothing to add to this thread other than to say that I thought
the above was an odd combination of sentences.

cl 'Tis odd, indeed.

But enough about me. What are you doing about Bush?

Because he's my Commander-in-Chief I support him in every regard.
But aside from that, he's doing exactly what I'm paying him to do (with
respect to my federal taxes helping to pay his salary). He's a good man
but I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the liberal media to think
otherwise.
[,,,]

cl I'm also puzzled why one would espouse total support of a
cl "Commander-in-Chief" simply because he is "the Chief." I'm not
cl singling you out, as I see examples of this sentiment everywhere
cl (i.e., not just in the US.) It seems to go against the principles of
cl democracy and informed citizenry. I don't think I'm exaggerating when
cl I say that such a sentiment is more a fundamental marker of
cl totalitarianism.


One should never let political allegiances make one deny what one
believes is true and against good judgement. Blind acceptance is to
open the door to let the goosestepping brutes into the human race.
I agree...

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... Murphy's rule of combat: Incoming fire has right of way

On 22/11/2005 5:43 PM, Jim Kelley wrote:
clvrmnky wrote:

Also, I'm pretty sure you don't know your president personally, so it
is technically a fallacy to say "he is a good man." Perhaps you
surmise from his actions (or the second-hand, imperfect, reports of
such actions) that he has qualities you admire? The problem, of
course, is that just as many people could come to the opposite
determination of the president being a "bad man" by the very same
actions. I mean, how does one know if they are the one being
brain-washed or not?

Is saying bad things about people you don't know morally equivalent to
saying good things about them? Some people believe that if it is
repeated often enough and long enough, it will become so.

Your question puzzles me. I don't recall making any value statements,
or mentioning any moral imperatives. People say things. Other people
hear them, or hear about it from others. We can only arrive at some
concrete value for abstracts like "good" or "true" by consensus and
examination.

I'm also puzzled why one would espouse total support of a
"Commander-in-Chief" simply because he is "the Chief."

The not-so clvr mnky might consider that to those for whom the current
Commander-in-Chief is Commander-in-Chief, it's pretty clear whose side
he is on.

We have met the enemy, and he is us!

Seriously, I have no idea what you are driving at. Whose side is who
on? I was speaking to the notion that tautologies such as "I support
the chief because he is the chief" seem odd to me. Even the inverse is
a tautology.

clvrmnky wrote:

Also, I'm pretty sure you don't know your president personally, so it is
technically a fallacy to say "he is a good man."

We judge people daily by their actions and their stated beliefs. His
actions exactly follow his beliefs: Freedom is a God given right, and we
will do everything in our power to help those that are oppressed.

Perhaps you surmise
from his actions (or the second-hand, imperfect, reports of such
actions) that he has qualities you admire? The problem, of course, is
that just as many people could come to the opposite determination of the
president being a "bad man" by the very same actions. I mean, how does
one know if they are the one being brain-washed or not?

Fundamental differences in what people believe (e.g., preemptive action
versus complacency) will determine their opinion.

Is saying bad things about people you don't know morally equivalent to
saying good things about them?

I'm not convinced that saying bad things about someone you don't know has
any moral value at all, unless one's negative image of that person is
based upon that person's actions and beliefs.

I'm also puzzled why one would espouse total support of a
"Commander-in-Chief" simply because he is "the Chief."

You're puzzled due to the fact that you've never served in the armed
forces of the United States.

(Follow-ups set to email.)

73, Jeff KH6O
--
Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System