From: (No=A0No=A0Not=A0George)
(Twistedhed) wrote: Rat shackers with 23 channels
were not illegal,,unless, of course, you hold cbers as the ones who
introduced the channel splicing capablities and band jumping...LOL.

So you mean

I mean only what I posted.


HAMNS introduced the channel splicing

capablities and band jumping.

See what you are capable of when force fed!

Why would hams who could run power and

talk

on dozens of other bands legally want to risk

there licenses running outlaw cb??


Ask any of the thousands that have been busted for running outlaw hammie
stations over the years.


Oh I know you will say they wanted to escape

restriction of hammie radio.


That is what you said.


What restrictions


(shrug) They are *your* restrictions.
Mumbling to yourself outloud isn't the healthiest of traits concerning
sound mental balance.


oh You mean an ID

I mean what I posted. This is getting to be quite fun,,,your learning
disability in full view.


every ten minutes how is

that a big restriction?

You brought it here as a restriction, not I.

You know you are full of ****
=A0

=A0I'm not the one hiding like you are...that would make *you" full of
****. You came in to this forum wearing your clogged heart on your
sleeve and had it gutted and handed back to you..it's why you no longer
post your call,,you were made, no, FORCED to go underground and hide
what you were once proud to display, even though you can't learn code.


Tipsey and getting fuller.


Your anger has relegated you once again, not
only to undergrouond status, but back to being
ignored until you can learn how to carry a
conversation without your Tourette Syndrome
coming in to play.

(Night Ranger) wrote in message om...
If you know anything at all about legitimate radio antenna theory then
the following CB antenna is worth a chuckle. I don't know if this guy
is clueless or just dishonest, but which ever it is you definitly do
not want him repairing your CB radio.

Star Gun Mobile Beam Antenna (laugh)

http://cbrepairs.com/index.htm


I've actually seens someone driving down the road with one of those
contraptions on the roof. I think it was a VW Jetta... Quite a site!

In , Lancer
wrote:

snip
The current distribution for the coil isn't uniform,
(input current output current). So it won't evenly dissipate heat,
it will be hotter where the greatest current flow is.

Good point.

snip
..... In fact, coils with very high Q are very poor radiators.

No, but an antenna with a high Q coil is more efficient, due to the
lower loss in the coil.

I think that was intended to mean, "....an antenna with a high Q coil is more
efficient than an antenna with a low Q coil,....", which isn't exactly true.
There are many helical antennas in use. As inductors they have very low Q, yet
they are more efficient radiators than some antennas with high Q loading coils,
and far more efficient radiators than the coils themselves. Don't forget that
resistive loss is -only one- of the factors that determine radiation resistance.
Again I point out that those huge loading coils have significant eddy current
and reflective losses due to the fact that they are so large and are mounted
with the axis perpendicular to the roof of the vehicle. And if that roof is
ferrous (as most of them are), that's just like adding a solid iron core to an
HF air-core coil -- bad news. Although increasing the conductor diameter (and
therefore the overall size of the coil) is a basic technique to achieve a higher
Q, it is nonetheless 'basic' and fails to account for all other relevant factors
in the intended application, even factors that can negate any improvement that
would be expected from the bigger coil.

Besides that, they are ugly. But if someone want's to drive a vehicle that looks
like it collided with George Jetson's space buggy then that's their problem, not
mine.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----