On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:58:46 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such
thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE.


then

"Bob Brock" wrote in message

Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about
39,100. Search took 0.17 seconds


So Bob, go ahead and build a "1/4 wave dipole" and tell us how it
performs!

"Dipole" *is* defined as half-wave, for within any half-wave segment,
there are two (di-) voltage/current poles. You cannot have a "1/4
wave dipole." When that term is used (such as in your Google search),
they're really refering to each of the two elements as being 1/4 wave-
length each, and 1/4 * 2 = 1/2.

I did the same search. You don't get anywhere as many hits (104) when
searching on 1/4 wave dipole. Interestingly enough, you get some where
people are asking if a poster *really* meant 1/2 wave dipole. If you
just type in 1/4 wave dipole, you'll get hits on 1/4 1/4 wave. 1/4 wave
dipole, wave, and dipole. I don't doubt that you could get around 39,000
hits with that broad a search.

At best, it is a misnomer, at worst, a pretty poor antenna.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I provided a working link and cut/pasted the search results. Why
didn't you just click on the link? If you had, your search results
would have been exactly the same.

Try searching the web and not the ng's.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:04:18 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?


Geez, talk about a page from history! It was years ago that I
posed almost the same question to you, Carl, except I asked
"How many members of NCI are licensed" to which you replied,
"It doesn't matter..."



Jeffrey, the answer is "thousands, and growing every day."

It's too bad that a person that refuses to give out even the basic
numbers of devotees decides to ask for a numerical breakdown of a rival
groups numbers.

Assuming his accounting methods are acceptable, the answer is
thousands, and growing every day.

- Mike KB3EIA -

The code requirement is dead, so numbers don't matter.

Bob Brock wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:58:46 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


Jeffrey Herman wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:


I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such
thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE.


then

"Bob Brock" wrote in message


Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about
39,100. Search took 0.17 seconds


So Bob, go ahead and build a "1/4 wave dipole" and tell us how it
performs!

"Dipole" *is* defined as half-wave, for within any half-wave segment,
there are two (di-) voltage/current poles. You cannot have a "1/4
wave dipole." When that term is used (such as in your Google search),
they're really refering to each of the two elements as being 1/4 wave-
length each, and 1/4 * 2 = 1/2.

I did the same search. You don't get anywhere as many hits (104) when
searching on 1/4 wave dipole. Interestingly enough, you get some where
people are asking if a poster *really* meant 1/2 wave dipole. If you
just type in 1/4 wave dipole, you'll get hits on 1/4 1/4 wave. 1/4 wave
dipole, wave, and dipole. I don't doubt that you could get around 39,000
hits with that broad a search.

At best, it is a misnomer, at worst, a pretty poor antenna.

- Mike KB3EIA -


I provided a working link and cut/pasted the search results. Why
didn't you just click on the link? If you had, your search results
would have been exactly the same.

Try searching the web and not the ng's.

Against my better judgement, I'll communicate with you.

Re-read my post.

Explain how a search engine works.

Explain how I can get 104 hits vs your 39,000.

Explain how you can get 39,000 hits. I got 24,500 hits when I did it
your way, but those numbers can change.

Think about how being specific in search params will give you more
relevent results than just typing in the words, which will give you many
many hits on sometimes only one of the words.

Oh I forgot, you don't have to explain. But that won't make you correct,
either.

- mike KB3EIA -

(WA8ULX) wrote in message ...

Do you posts
violate yous ISP's TOS?

I dont know, and I dont care, do you?

Would you be the same way about operation in
the ham bands

Of course

Bruce is their poster boy.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:57:21 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:

Try searching the web and not the ng's.

Against my better judgement, I'll communicate with you.

Re-read my post.

Explain how a search engine works.

Explain how I can get 104 hits vs your 39,000.

Explain how you can get 39,000 hits. I got 24,500 hits when I did it
your way, but those numbers can change.

Click on the link. I did and here is what I got...BTW, this is copy
and paste, so it's exactly what's there.
-----------------------------
Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about
38,900. Search took 0.20 seconds
-----------------------------

Someone is lying and anyone who wants to click on the link can tell
who. BTW, I found five sites that list 1/4 wave dipoles and one site
that lists a 3/4 wave dipole in the first ten listed.

Think about how being specific in search params will give you more
relevent results than just typing in the words, which will give you many
many hits on sometimes only one of the words.

Oh I forgot, you don't have to explain. But that won't make you correct,
either.

- mike KB3EIA -

No, since I'm already correct and have documented it, there is no need
for me to prove anything. You know, I have better things to do right
now than to click on a link that I've already provided to show that it
says the same thing that it said when I posted it.

Plonk for now. I may take you back out when I get caught up on
things, but I really don' have time to deal with liars right now.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:47:08 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:04:18 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?


Geez, talk about a page from history! It was years ago that I
posed almost the same question to you, Carl, except I asked
"How many members of NCI are licensed" to which you replied,
"It doesn't matter..."



Jeffrey, the answer is "thousands, and growing every day."

It's too bad that a person that refuses to give out even the basic
numbers of devotees decides to ask for a numerical breakdown of a rival
groups numbers.

Assuming his accounting methods are acceptable, the answer is
thousands, and growing every day.

- Mike KB3EIA -

The code requirement is dead, so numbers don't matter.


How is it dead? The FCC has not changed the rules. And until they do.
Morse code is still a requirement for ARS operation on HF.

Dan/W4NTI

If you can't see the handwriting on the wall, that's your problem..not
mine.

Bob Brock wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:57:21 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


Bob Brock wrote:


Try searching the web and not the ng's.

Against my better judgement, I'll communicate with you.

Re-read my post.

Explain how a search engine works.

Explain how I can get 104 hits vs your 39,000.

Explain how you can get 39,000 hits. I got 24,500 hits when I did it
your way, but those numbers can change.


Click on the link. I did and here is what I got...BTW, this is copy
and paste, so it's exactly what's there.
-----------------------------
Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about
38,900. Search took 0.20 seconds
-----------------------------

Someone is lying and anyone who wants to click on the link can tell
who. BTW, I found five sites that list 1/4 wave dipoles and one site
that lists a 3/4 wave dipole in the first ten listed.

Think about how being specific in search params will give you more
relevent results than just typing in the words, which will give you many
many hits on sometimes only one of the words.

Oh I forgot, you don't have to explain. But that won't make you correct,
either.

- mike KB3EIA -


No, since I'm already correct and have documented it, there is no need
for me to prove anything. You know, I have better things to do right
now than to click on a link that I've already provided to show that it
says the same thing that it said when I posted it.

Plonk for now. I may take you back out when I get caught up on
things, but I really don' have time to deal with liars right now.


Perhaps if Mr. Brock does have me killfiled, someone could explain to
him that if he wants to find relevant hits on 1/4 wave dipole, he can
just put the words in quote marks on Yahoo or Google.

Then the search will return relevant hits, rather than simple
occurrences of the individual words, along with the hits wanted. There
is no doubt in my mind that he got those 39,500 hits. It is symptomatic
of poor database searching technique.

His 39,500 hit number, for all it's sound and fury, signifies nothing.

Then please tell him I will be happy to be filtered from his mail
forever if possible.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bob Brock wrote:
If you can't accept the fact that people build, sell, and buy 1/4 wave
dipoles for use in UHF, get over it. Just don't try to make stuff up
and post it.

Again, by definition "dipole" means two current or voltage poles; it
does not refer to the number of elements of the antenna.

You can't have two (di-) current or voltage poles in just a 1/4-wave
segment. Calling it such doesn't make it so. It takes a 1/2-wavelength
for two (di-) such poles to appear.

Jeff KH6O
--
Operations Specialist 1st, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

In article ,
Mike Coslo wrote:

Perhaps if Mr. Brock does have me killfiled, someone could explain to
him that if he wants to find relevant hits on 1/4 wave dipole, he can
just put the words in quote marks on Yahoo or Google.

Then the search will return relevant hits, rather than simple
occurrences of the individual words, along with the hits wanted. There
is no doubt in my mind that he got those 39,500 hits. It is symptomatic
of poor database searching technique.

His 39,500 hit number, for all it's sound and fury, signifies nothing.

Then please tell him I will be happy to be filtered from his mail
forever if possible.

- Mike KB3EIA -

What's really scary, Mike, is that folks like Bob believe everything
they read on the web. A manufacturer might advertise a misnomer such
as "1/4-wave dipole" and someone like Bob believes such an item can
really exist, when in fact "1/4-wave" and "dipole" are contradictions.

Jeff KH6O

--
Operations Specialist 1st, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

On 13 Sep 2003 04:50:38 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
If you can't accept the fact that people build, sell, and buy 1/4 wave
dipoles for use in UHF, get over it. Just don't try to make stuff up
and post it.

Again, by definition "dipole" means two current or voltage poles; it
does not refer to the number of elements of the antenna.

You can't have two (di-) current or voltage poles in just a 1/4-wave
segment. Calling it such doesn't make it so. It takes a 1/2-wavelength
for two (di-) such poles to appear.

Jeff KH6O

You must have replied to the wrong post. But out of curiousity, how
many current or voltage poles is a "J" as in J-pole.