On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:50:39 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Antennas are referenced to either or both because both are constants.

Yes but referencing a theoretical model whose characteristics cannot
be realized in the real world, is somewhat disingenuous. A 1/2 wave
dipole is a standard reference antenna in the real world.


......"disingenuous"? LOL!

What, do you need the definition explained to you? Ok:


dis·in·gen·u·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dsn-jny-s)
adj.

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.

2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.

The usage of theoretical model which can never be realized in the real
world is deliberately misleading, and as such conforms to #!
definition above.




It has 0 dB when referenced to itself.

Isn't that what I just said?


Unfortunately, yes, that's exactly what you said, and it's absolutely
dumb since -every- antenna has 0 dB gain in reference to itself.

But we don't reference an antenna against itself, we reference it
against a 1/2 wave dipole, a reference antenna which has unity gain.


Time for your next lesson, Dave:

Please. Stop patting yourself on the back Frank, you'll pull a muscle.


The decibel is the unit of measure in a comparative quantification
system that establishes a value in relation to a specified 'standard'
or 'reference'. In the case of antenna gain, the measurement is
compared to either an isotropic antenna or a 1/2-wave dipole in free
space (neither of which, FYI, are obtainable in the real world). A
measurement in reference to the isotropic is labelled 'dBi', and when
referenced to the dipole the label is 'dBd'. Look up antenna specs and
you will see that both references are commonly used. Actually, dBi is
more common because it gives higher numbers, which works better from a
marketing perspective. Now to say that "a dipole has "0 dB gain", or even "unity gain", means
absolutely nothing because there is no reference.

I pretty much said the same thing on my website:

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj/antennagainmyth.htm



Even if you include
the reference but the reference is to itself, that's no better than
saying that an inch is equal to an inch -- even more meaningless. And
just so you are very clear on this, a dipole (1/2-wave Hertzian) has a
gain of 3 dBi -ONLY- in the direction of maximum gain; and again, that
gain is realized -only- in free space. That being said.....

This amounts to a simple tap dance in preparation for yet another weak
defense of your misleading information. You almost sound as if you
used to work for one of the more unscrupulous antenna companies


Antenna gain in the -real- world is first measured as field strength,
then that value is compared against the calculated equivalent field
strength of a free-space dipole and/or isotropic radiator. Here's the
shocker, Dave: If you do that with a 1/2-wave dipole you will find
that it does -not- have a gain of 3 dbi at the point of maximum gain
for the simple reason that it is not in free space. IOW, your dipole
with "unity gain" is nothing more than a theoretical fantasy.

Which is why a dipole has an actual gain of 2.14 dbi, and not 3dbi. No
one is disputing that.

So in other words, what you are saying essentially is that you can't
trust any antenna gain specs, because the conditions by which they are
measured are never guaranteed to remain constant.

You said it yourself (and I agree) that a db is a unit of RELATIVE
measure. If I say that a dipole has unity gain, then it does, as
compared to a reference dipole tested in real world conditions.


Then it's no longer a half wave dipole. You are now talking double
ended zepp designs, which do exhibit gain over a 1/2 wave dipole


But you didn't say "half wave dipole". You said only "dipole" which
could be any kind of dipole, be it a double-ended Zepp or the rabbit
ears perched on top of your overused television set.

When the facts fail, argue semantics. When that fails, make unfounded
speculations about another's recreational habits.

But that just makes me smile :-)


Smile all you want -- the difference between the terms is significant
despite your self-defined assumptions.

Keep telling yourself that. It's why you turn a disagreement over
semantics into a full blown ****ing contest.


Silly me for assuming that an antenna needs feedline to connect to it.


Yep, you get yourself into a lot of trouble with your assumptions.

Yea, silly me for making practical assumptions. There must be at least
one or two people who attach their radios right to their antennas
without feedline..... You have a habit of trying to make a case based
on the exception rather than the rule. Similar to what you tried to
pull with the Pa. State speeding laws. You tried to invalidate my
claim that a speed tolerance was wrong based on a small, virtually
unused method of measurement, rather than admit you were wrong in the
vast majority of cases. Even when the facts were presented to you, you
continued to try to play that exception.

It was getting painful to watch you hold on to it.


Only an idiot would run 200 feet or more of open 450 Ohm ladder line.


Then there are a lot of idiots in this world, since most transmission
line runs longer than 200 feet are usually some sort of ladder line or
twin-lead as their attenuation is significantly lower than that of
most types of coax. And I don't think many hams use 3-1/8" pressurized
line, do they?

I don't know of many hams who run any longer runs of ladder line than
what is necessary to perform a proper impedance transfer. They usually
attach to a balun and then run coaxial cable to it.

Unless of course, you don't care about feedline radiation and RFI
issues.


Ladder line is a balanced line -- it won't radiate unless the load or
source is unbalanced (assuming it's used at a frequency with a
wavelength significantly larger than the spacing).

And of course, we know that never happens.....


Most antennas which are designed to use ladder line, are also
spec'ed for a certain fixed length of the ladder line as part of its
impedance match.


And you claim to have experience with these things? LOL!

I do.



At that point a balun is connected and the rest of
the feedline completes the usual configuration. If you were a ham,
you'd know this.


If you were as experienced as you claim then you would know that hams
rarely use baluns with ladder line, and not too often with twin-lead
either.

Really? I guess I'd better get on 80 meters tonight and tell all those
good ol' boys that they've been doing it wrong for all these years.
I'll give them your e-mail address if that's ok.


But keeping with the original perspective, of a simple antenna system
for Vinnie, this falls far short of that objective.


Simplicity dictates buying an Imax or Antron and sticking it in a tree
or on a pole. Plug-n-play. You can't get much simpler than that. The
complexity arose when you threw a fit after my suggestion that Vinnie
might want to try and make his own antenna.

I threw a "fit"? Hardly. I have no problem with anyone making their
own antennas. That's what ham radio is all about. BUT, when the
suggestions you made were for antennas which do not perform well for
the intended use,


The antenna worked fine for me.

I though my 2 meter ringo running through a tuner was "fine" as well.
Until I put up something better and made the comparison. It's all
relative. Perhaps your standards are not as exacting as mine.



If you couldn't get it to work then
there's probably a reason that stems from your technical incompetence,
which really doesn't suprise me -- this may be one of the simplest
antennas that a person can make, but only -you- could foul it up with
all your assumptions and distorted theories.


You said it yourself, it's a simple antenna. Trying to discredit my
findings by claiming that I screwed it up, does not detract from the
reality of performance comparisons. The antenna was constructed
correctly, the SWR was good, it was mounted properly, and it didn't
work as well as a gain-type vertical. Plain and simple.


I felt compelled to point this out. You are not
going to throw a couple of wires up in a tree, tune them with a tuner
and expect it to perform as well as a commercial (or homemade if
you're so inclined) gain-type, purpose-built, vertical antenna.


That's funny, Dave. Just a couple posts ago you were whining about me
saying; "You will sit there and tell people, who do these things every
day, exactly why they can't possibly work." Now you are doing what you
claim I do (but never have). Once again you have proven your own
hypocrisy.

You're talking in circles again Frank. You're making me dizzy trying
to make sense of it. Try again when you're not nipping at the bottles
at the bar.


A tuner forces a resonant load from something which isn't resonant
naturally. That's sort of like keeping someone alive with a
respirator.


Hmmmm..... the Schiavo antenna..... not a very good analogy, Dave.

Schiavo was not on a respirator Frank. Try to keep up.


You can (and I have) load up large metal objects (like rain gutters
and bedsprings), and force them to have a 1:1 SWR. But that doesn't
mean that the antenna is an efficient radiator. That's my whole point.


You like to use the word "force"..... nothing is being "forced", Dave.

Yes it is. Resonance is a natural thing. A particular given antenna
has a natural resonance point. Trying to make it resonant at a point
other than that natural point is forcing it to resonance.





Now for your lesson in real life application of antenna principles:

I was completely out of CB between 1990 and 1993, and I took down all
of my CB antennas. When I got the bug to get back into CB again, I had
the following antennas: a horizontal 10 meter dipole, a 5/8th wave 2
meter Ringo Ranger 2, a 6 meter 3 element beam (horizontal), a 2 meter
10 element Cushcraft "twistbeam" (horizontal & vertical), and a
Diamond tri-band 146, 220 and 440 Mhz vertical.

Now, I also had at my disposal a tuner. I could load up every antenna
in that list on the CB band, with a less than 1.5:1 SWR. Out of that
list of antennas, the only one which worked somewhat acceptably was
the 2 meter Ringo Ranger, as it was about a 1/4 wave long at CB
frequencies. It was also at the top of my tower. The 10 meter dipole
loaded the easiest, but being horizontal, wasn't much use for local
talking.

Sometime later, I put my Avanti Sigma 4 back up, and it wasabout 2
"S" units stronger transmitting to others, on average, than the 2
meter Ringo through the tuner.

THAT is the difference between theory and practice. Sure you can load
up a non-resonant antenna and it will "work". But it won't work as
well as an antenna designed for the band.


Notice that all but one of your examples were shorter than a 1/4-wave.

I forgot to mention my 6 meter 1/2 wave Ringo vertical. That is also
about a 1/4 wave at 27 Mhz, but for some reason didn't work as well as
the 2 meter version.

Were you actually hoping for performance better than a rubber-ducky or
2-foot gutter-mount?

There are limitations to the length of an antenna. Longer is not
always better. Loading up a 40 meter vertical on CB isn't all that
sweet either in the performance area.


Geez Dave, you sure are a dumbass.

I'm not the one reading a book on antenna theory and trying to pass it
off as actual experience.

No, you are the one claiming to have much more experience than you
actually have.

I never claimed to have extensive experience in all forms of antenna
usage. But I DO have extensive experience on what works well, and what
works poorly on the CB band.


Wrong. Noise "tends" to have the polarity of the sources. The sources
of noise can be mostly vertical -or- horizontal depending on a number
of factors, not the least of which are geographic location, time of
day (as well as season), solar activity, band of operation......

Time to read another book Frank. Or better yet ask a ham. The greatest
majority of noise is vertically polarized. Maybe if you have been
paying attention in those theory classes instead of "teaching" logic
classes, and trying to book whip your way through psychology 101, you
might know this.


Maybe if you had a Cushcraft CFB-8 you could have spent several years
switching between horizontal and vertical, and seen for yourself that
sometimes vertical is noisier than horizontal and sometimes it's the
other way around. (The ice storm in '96 took out my Cushcraft, the
rotor and the tower -- makes me sad because it was probably the best
CB antenna I ever owned).

I am not familiar with that model antenna. Could you provide the
specs?


Ah, so you're changing the parameters of the discussion. Long wires
are inefficient on CB as well. Been there, done that.


I changed nothing. You probably had a problem with the long-wire
antenna because you were expecting an omnidirectional pattern, which a
long-wire does not have.

What else would you want for local CB talking? Stay within the
parameters of the intended use. I never said that your suggestions
were bad designs or unsuitable in any application. But for the use we
were originally discussing, they fall far short.


It does (at least in the "H" plane) if it's mounted vertically. But
that's impractical for HF use.


Of course it's impractical since your lobes are shooting into the
ground and towards a few satellites.

Exactly my point.



Wire antennas are awkward and do not work well on CB for
local talking. So where Frank?


Long-wire antennas can indeed be awkward, but sometimes an opportunity
presents itself that can't be ignored. Maybe you don't have farms near
where you live but there are plenty around here, complete with wire
fences. And there are also mountains to go camping, some of which have
very nice slopes that are ideal for a long-wire or rhombic.

A rhombic antenna has fantastic gain, but it's directional and
cumbersome to move. Again, it's impractical for local CB use.


But like I said before (and you conveniently snipped), antennas are
reciprocal. IOW, I don't need to have a license to receive on -any-
band. I do a lot of SWL if you haven't guessed by now.

So how do you gauge relative antenna performance differences on a
simple receiver. Differences of 1 or two S units would not be easily
measured, especially on DX signals which constantly change with
conditions. I used to SWL too. I got what I thought was satisfactory
performance just hanging a long wire out of my bedroom window. But how
do you quantify that?


Regardless, I
have used long-wire antennas for transmitting on HF in the USMC, on
the CB, and a few Part 15 experiments on HF, MF and LF. They work just
fine -- for their intended purpose.

I agree. But that purpose is not for local talking on the CB band.


The point is, as it has always been, that you glaringly lack the
necessary experience to back up your claims.


How much experience do I need before I know what I'm doing, Dave? More
experience than you?

No, just enough that you stop making generic suggestions for things
which require a specific application. Such actions are borne of
ignorance.



I have had way more experience. I was
playing with the 170 Khz band when I was a kid, along with 35 years
of CB experience, 24 years of ham experience, and being employed as a
tech and engineer for a few high tech firms as well as 30 years of
hands on CB, ham radio, and stereo repair.


I really don't care about your fantasy world, Dave

Only you insist on calling it that. But that doesn't make it so.


-- you said I don't
have any experience. You are wrong. If you want to count years then I
can point out several hams who have a lot more years on the air than
you and haven't learned any more than you have, and some kids who
don't have any license at all and know more than both of us put
together. You think time is the measure of knowledge?

No, but it is a measure of wisdom.


It isn't, not
when you don't spend that time wisely and learn something from all
that "experience".

My experience tells me not to waste my time with mickey mouse wire
antennas and tuners for local CB talking.


And in all those years of experience you claim to
have, you still haven't learned one very important thing: There are
other people who are smarter than you.

I never said otherwise. You are putting thoughts in my head again
Frank. Your assumptions in this case are very telling, and more likely
a form of projection.


You like to play the old salt
when some bright, young whipper-snapper comes along because that gives
you a sense of self-importance, making you think that you are the
center of his attention.

Is that why you got let go from the radio station? Some fair-haired
college kid whip you into a frenzy and for less money?

You aren't. Neither am I, but you can't bear
the thought of someone else like me hogging the glory of your years of
technical accomplishment.

Keep going Frank, this is indeed interesting. You've managed to spin a
total yarn, based on nothing more than your own feelings. You do have
some unresolved bitterness down there.


Well, get used to it -- there -are- smarter
people than you, with more experience than you, and with a better
education than you; and unlike you, some of them have an open mind to
learning things they might not have learned the first time around the
block.

I learn things every day. Like today, I have a better understanding of
what's eating at you.


By suggesting tha using a tuner is a "hassle". It's not if you
understand how to use it.


It -is- a hassle when changing channels is done as often as it is on
the CB.

Not for a dedicated high performance operator. These same guys would
put up with the drift of a Siltronix VFO, deal with monster beams
which dwarf their homes, and you think adjusting a simple tuner is too
big of a "hassle"?

Maybe that's what your inexperience has taught you, but that's not
what actually happened. Yes, there were a few people out there who
cringed when their SWR crept above 1.5:1. The difference that a
matchbox provided did not overcome the insertion loss. But that's not
the cases I was making. There were people who had serious mismatch
problems (over 3:1) because they did not know how to properly tune the
antenna. They then compensated for their blunder by forcing the SWR to
1:1 with a tuner.


.......oh brother

You have a habit of saying things like this when you're fed a dose of
reality. Why is that?


The radio was happy, but the antenna was not
radiating efficiently and their signal potential was cut considerably.
When the real problem was corrected, and the tuner removed, their
signals increased.

The point, of course, is that if what you stated before was correct,
you should be able to radiate a signal just as well with an antenna
which was not in tune (non-resonant) through the use of a tuner to
"force" a resonance, than with a naturally resonant antenna. My own
personal experience in this exact scenario proves exactly the
opposite.


Yet you contradict yourself by espousing the virtues of a 5/8-wave
antenna.

There's nothing contradictory about a 5/8 wave antenna. It beats a 1/2
wave dipole hands down. And it is resonant, even if not at 50 ohms.

No, but I have played with most of more the common home made antennas
which a CB'er would be most likely to utilize. When you're young and
have a lot of time, you tend to experiment alot. I did.


Nowdays your time is wasted on TV, video games, newsgroup posting and
pizza deliveries.

I'm smiling again. ;-)

Yet
you haven't been here to evaluate -my- antennas..... have you been
playing with your crystal ball again, Dave?


What, you have some "miracle" antenna design that no one else has ever
played with? What could possibly be so special about YOUR antennas
Frank? Let me guess, you spray them with Teflon?


No "miracle" antenna, just a few practical applications of theory that
fly in the face of your vast and fully comprehensive "experience".

Bull****, Frank. There's no other word for it.


You should give up on the crystal ball Frank. It didn't work for you,
so you should know that it wouldn't work for me.

And just about
every CBer who runs a tube linear uses a tuner because it's built into
the amp, which by itself blows big holes in your "practical" argument.

Not at all. A tube amplifier requires a tuner because the impedance of
a tube is much higher than 50 ohms, and needs to be transformed. It's
not practicality, it's necessity.


It's not "necessity" since the amp is not a necessity -- there is
always the alternative of using a solid-state amp, or no amp at all.

It's a necessity if you use a tube amp and want it to work. Please
stop with the semantics. If your argument is that weak, you should
just stop.


Weak? You just said that a tuner is necessary for a tube amp to work.
Neglecting any unlikely variations, you are correct. Yet this is in
direct contradiction to your previous statments because the built-in
tuner is practical not just from the standpoint that it's required,
but that such amps usually tune over a wide spectrum that covers
several ham bands, which is one of the reasons I suggested to Vinnie
to build an antenna with a tuner. So if your argument about tube amps
isn't favorable of my suggestion to use a tuner then I don't know what
is. (And I can't believe you didn't see that trap even -after- I told
you about setting a few.....ROTFL!!!)

THIS is your trap? Frank you need help. You are changing the
application and attempting to make a direct comparison when there
isn't one. I never said a tuner isn't useful. I said that a non
resonant antenna forced to a match on CB will not work as well as an
antenna designed for the band. There are no universal truths.
Situations are relative. Are you that desperate, that you need to
start twisting words? That trick didn't buy twisty any credibility and
it will do no more for you.


So most high performance CBers spend their time and money on equipment
designed to maximize their 4 watts?

A typical high performance CB'er will spend his money on the best
antennas that he can afford. Whether he stays at 4 watts is a personal
choice. It makes little sense to spend money on a big "honkin'" amp
and then **** that power into a poor antenna. The name of the game is
ERP, and that's a combination of transmitter power (minus feedline and
other losses) and antenna gain.


.......uh, was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

What does it matter? Surely you've met a few guys like that in you
"years" of CBing. I know I did.



The fact that you keep asking, makes me all the less likely to tell
you.


Yet another cop-out. You probably sent in for one of those mail-order
schools and never finished it.

Sort of like that college degree that you allege that you have (yet
you tend bar).


I could scan my Diploma but you would probably dismiss it as a forgery
made by liberal journalists or Pentagon insiders.

I could scan a bunch of my certificates and diplomas as well. But
you'd also claim that printshop could create them.


I don't have to provide any credentials to you or
anyone else.


Because you don't have any. If you did you would be blowing those
horns just as loud as you blow your "experience" horn.

I don't make a habit of bragging about my ham license either.. Other
people bring it up. No one likes a braggart Frank, especially me. My
revelation of my experience was in direct response to your claim that
I don't know what I'm doing. I don't need to play the "my school is
better than your school game" in this group.


As long as there are people here who won't even fess up
to their real names, I owe no one any of my personal information.


Gee, it's not like you haven't provided any in the past.

Such as?


I've provided plenty of information when I felt you were worthy of
such. But after you discarded them as rubbish due to your intrinsic
bias,


I discarded them due to the facts that are available for anyone to
verify at any time -- even you.

Your "facts" were little more than other people's conclusions. Your
bias clouds you objectivity




I decided that you were not one who wanted any enlightenment.
Your mind was made up and anything I provided, you would simply
categorize as "propaganda".


Whine, whine, whine. Quit with the "bias and propoganda" spin already.

If the shoe fits Frank.



It was old when you used it to try and squirm your way out of your
political BS. Deal with the facts. Where are -your- facts, Dave?

Where are yours?



While
we sit here and laugh at you, because we've been there and done that.


Who is "we"? You and your imaginary groupies?

Look around and you'll see. Check the archives Frank. You've been on
the butt end of many other debates with people who possessed clearly
superior knowledge.


HA!


All of the fancy obscure terminology and tap
dancing you used couldn't hide your lack of experience.


Speaking of "fancy obscure terminology", why don't you take a crack at
"bird watts"?

That's not a true unit of measure. It was coined by a marginally
technical Cb'er in the same vein as "pounds" was coined to refer to
"S" units.



If I were to say, "it's part of a bigger picture", would
you say that's a fair explanation for the operation of a grounded-grid
triode?

That depends on the context.



Are you part of the crowd that thinks class-C amps are linear?

Hell no.


How do you get the flyback effect without a resonant output tank? You
better read those threads again, Dave.

It's tap dance terminology. Flyback effect has little to do with
linearizing an amp. It's mostly about DC bias.




Where did I say that I had never heard the term before? I didn't. What
I -did- say was that it was an inappropriate term.

According to you. Many others, who I hold a much higher level of
respect for, don't see it that way.


And you have yet to name just one.

What would it matter if I did? Would you know them?



It's not 100% accurate, but
it's a good start. It's better than random generic suggestions of
checking this and checking that.


Random? No, Dave, those suggestions were not picked at random. The
voltage regulator was nailed down by myself and Lance (and someone
else too, I think) because the symptoms pointed directly to it.

The original poster was scared off by your jumping on my back for
suggesting the cap. We never saw the outcome and whether he actually
found the real problem.


And in
case you missed the results of the test, the regulator output was
indeed bad. So either we got really lucky (all making the same
"random" suggestion) or we knew what we were doing.

How could you? You know next to nothing about the inner workings of a
CB radio. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself
trying to discredit my knowledge of the TRC 449/458/457/Cobra
138/139XLR chassis.


Either way, we
were much closer than your "it's almost always a cap" diagnosis.

Says you. The answer was never given to us.


and you try to cover this
glaring hole by claiming a pompous, superior attitude as if this was
beneath you.


No, -you- are beneath me, Dave, and that's where you'll stay until you
pull your head out of your ass.

You know, the no-code license is not that hard Frank. A guy with time
on his hands like you, should have no trouble with it....


Why would I want a license?

You claim to be a radio experimenter. What bigger playground is there
than ham radio?

To educate idiots like you?

You won't last long with your attitude.


I do that already in this newsgroup

The only thing we learn is that you a pompous arrogant blowhard who
tends bar for a living while claiming to be some sort of radio whiz.


. I know a few decent hams, but the rest are
typified by those chronically depressed fossils who frequent the
whine-nets on 40m and the channel-masters on 2m that think they are
God's gift to radio. No thanks -- you are better qualified to occupy
the hammie bands than me.

Translation: You couldn't cut it. Even Voob tried to push you into it,
and you actually considered it. So when are you going to step up to
the plate?


I'm not mocking them, I am them.


What a load of horse-****. Next you'll be claiming that you can't
disclose the nature of your work because it's classified by the
government, or some other hogwash like that.

Not at all. But I do choose to keep my vocation quiet. After what
happened to Dennis O, I keep it to myself.


I just played in the sandbox of
experimentation before I got my schooling. With that perspective, I
was able to concentrate on practical theory and discard the stuff that
we never use.


....."practical theory"? That's a good one, Dave!

What? Do I have to explain yet another term to you?


LOL! So where did you get your "schooling"?

Several places. And not all at once.


You think that just because you
learned something on your own that nobody else has the right to
profess such knowledge, and just because they didn't 'earn' it like
you did.

Now who's projecting with the crystal ball?


I didn't know a crystal ball could be used to project -- I always
thought of it more as a receiver than a transmitter.

Well technically, the crystal ball is the receiver. You are the
assumer and transmitter.


Yet instead of improving yourself by learning something new
you focus on the biggest difference between us -- an education -- and
try to hold it against me as some kind of professional malfeasance.

But there is no real difference in education. You ASSUME that I don't
have a comparable education to you because I refuse to devulge that
information.


No, I KNOW it because you don't have any grasp of the fundamental
theories behind electronics.

You mean that I don't use YOUR terms for it. You are very protective
of your terms. Just like your insistence that pulsating D.C. was
actually A.C.


But I can tell you that I'm not the one tending bar right
now. I am putting my education AND experience to work for me.


I'm having fun -and- making money doing -both-. Like I said, you
should try doing a little bartending yourself -- it might loosen up
your bowels.

Why? Slinging drinks to people who need to drown their frustrations
while inhaling clouds of cigarette smoke is not my idea of "fun", not
even considering the large pay cut.


And you would get social feedback from -real- people
instead of your imaginary groupies.

I deal with hundreds of real people on a weekly basis. May of whom are
big customers. Others strategic partners. Some work in the factories
in other countries. I admit that I have trouble understanding people
who speak broken English, but I keep humbling myself by reminding
myself that their English is better than my Chinese or Spanish.



But then that's probably why you
could never hold a job that requires social interaction.

I've had 3 full time jobs in 30 years. My current job, I've had for 20
years as of last December. Want to try again?

Same difference -- you are using a quantification of your experience
as the measure of comparison with no regard to qualification. You have
30 years experience with CB, so automatically you conclude that you
are "more informed" than someone with 29-1/2 years experience.

Never said otherwise.

Conversely, someone with a degree from MIT is not necessarily more
versed in R.F. theory than someone with a degree from Drexel.


My beef with your education is your over reliance on it


Well now that's -beyond- stupid, Dave. What good is an education if
you can't rely upon it?

You do more than rely upon it. You flaunt it like some sort of new
spring dress.

You chastise me for relying on my experience, while you do the same
with your education. Can you say (or spell) hypocrisy Frank?


If I know certain facts, does that mean I
should disregard them even when they are relevant?

Why not, you're quick to discredit my facts, and use your "education"
as a justification.


Or should I
disregard them just to make you feel better about your -lack- of
education?

Education is fine. But it only gives you the tools to learn. Actual
learning comes with applying education and gaining experience.


and how you
hold it up as some sort of badge of honor,


Maybe because it -is- a badge of honor. It's not something I simply
bought at the grocery store, it's something for which I worked very
goddam hard. I EARNED my degree. And since you have no idea where I'm
coming from I can tell that you DIDN'T.

Now you're sounding like a 20 WPM Extra who pouts at the thought of a
no-code license. I EARNED IT so everyone needs to.

I earned mine too. It took a lot longer than yours did. I did it for
the extra income potential.



not too unlike some hams do
with their licenses.


Just about anybody can pass a test when the answers are provided ahead
of time.

So what's your excuse again?


A ham license isn't something that's earned; nowdays they are
handed out like vials of deadly flu strains.

Everyone who's ever failed the exam makes similar comments.

I am not mocking them, I am mocking you.
You who CLAIM to be educated, but evidence suggests you are sorely
lacking in practical application of whatever it is you might have
learned.


Shall I make a list of what I have taught you about radio and
electronics since the last list? How long ago was that.... just a
couple months ago, wasn't it?

You now arrogantly claim to have taught me something? You're as bad a
Twisty who thinks he teaches me about radio law.


He did.

Nothing of the sort. He knows nothing and cannot provide any
substantiation for any claim he makes.

Neither one of you do
anything more than dance to smoke and mirrors and the twisting of
words.


No smoke or mirrors, Dave. The problem is that you can never admit
when you are wrong. You were wrong about roger-beeps,

And I admitted it.



you were wrong about speeding laws,

No, I wasn't. The Pa. statute clearly backs up my claim in the vast
majority of cases.


you were wrong about capacitors,

No, you failed to prove me wrong about anything. All you did was tap
dance around differences in terminology.


you were wrong
about non-resonant antennas and tuners.

Prove it then, with something more substantive than your own
arrogance. Prove that a non-resonant antenna will perform as well or
better than a commercial gain antenna on the CB band. Until you can,
you haven't "proven" anything, other than you disagree with me.


..... the list is almost endless

As endless as your own mind.



at this point. But hey, it's not like you really -want- to make your
life easier by simply keeping your mouth shut about things you know
nothing about.

What would be the fun in that? I'm making you froth and spew like no
one before. It's a good thing you like to live alone. I'd hate to
think that I might be responsible for a case of domestic violence.


You just can't resist pushing your way into the center
of the discussion whether by your electronic trouble-guessing, legal
assumptions, political propoganda, or during an ensuing argument.

My troubleshooting has been right more often than not Frank. Most
recently the diagnosis of final oscillation in an HR-2510.

But
that's just the way you are, Dave. It's all summarized in the analysis
I did about your personality disorders.

Ah yes, another example of your glaring lack of experience. You know
absolutely nothing about reading people, especially me. I'm having
fun pushing your buttons, and you, like Twisty, never fail to perform
when prodded.


Now your memory is failing, Dave -- did you forget so soon that I'm
currently designing and building a studio?

So you claim. That and 50 cents can't even buy a decent cup of coffee.
I can claim that I'm installing the new digital video links at ABC
too.


You have made a lot of claims and haven't backed up -any- of them with
-any- facts. I have.

No, you haven't.


Unlike you, I don't hide anything about me.


Consequently, my claims are far more credible than yours.

Not when they're clearly wrong.

That's how to play the credibility game. You lost the game a long time ago, Dave,
and just like any other Gore loser you can't accept defeat. So you
hang around the board and keep playing your own little game, not
realizing that the real game continues despite you, and that you are
tolerated simply because you won't go away.

All this assumes that I care what you think.


Go find another game, Dave.

Why? This forum ceased to be a venue for anything constructive log
ago. For me, my fun is tweaking mentally unstable and arrogant
assholes. I'm having fun, aren't you?


Don't even -hint- that you have any kind of technical or engineering
job in the radio/electronics field because I'm not buying it for one
second. You have proven your ignorance on the subject so many times
that it's well beyond the realm of probability.

Yet it is a true fact nonetheless , which only outlines just how far
off you are.


uh-huh, sure Dave, whatever you say.

I got the paycheck to prove it. All else is irrelevant.


Pay attention, dummy: You said "not all hams are mensa candidates". I
agree. In fact, I agree 100%. Even if I didn't agree, you have already
offered irrefutable proof to support your claim -- your own ignorance.

The joke loses it's effect when you have to explain it Frank. But you
do it anyway.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj