| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
January 29th 06, 11:59 PM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
102" whip
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:36:57 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:48:36 -0500, wrote in : So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you did, correct? I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation. Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument. Abortion is simple. I could summarize the problem in about four or five paragraphs, and the solution in one or two more. Wow. You are truly a smart man. I nominate you for the next professorship. Irwin Corey would be proud. The antenna argument is even simpler. I have offered a solution which rewards you with a new antenna and $200 if what you say is true, but costs you only a gas fillup (and your integrity) if you lied. You have flatly rejected my offer. That, my friend, is a stronger argument than any EM theory you could assemble into a coherent explanation. You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out. If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test completely independent of my help. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Impedance of pull-up whip on SW Receiver? | Shortwave | |||
| Why do you use a whip antenna? | Shortwave | |||
| Blast from the past...........102 SS whip | CB | |||
| Effect of whip diameter on resonant frequency | Antenna | |||
| Sony Portable versus Tabletops | Shortwave | |||
Threaded Mode
