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

Dan/W4NTI

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:31:17 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:30:30 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


You're right, Dee. That's the point I try to make...I rote memorized
for
the test. Now, the argument for the above scenario could also be made
that
the instrukshions can be looked up. I've built quite a few antennas.
All
of them I used instrukshions for; and they all worked great.

Kim W5TIT


What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole
that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That
is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based.


There's nothing at all wrong with having some part of the test be based
on
something related to performance--other than CW; comment on that in a
moment--if there could be a generally agreed upon topic. I think
establishing something like a digital station would be more appropriate
than
building an antenna, because I think what should be tested is something
everyone will do at one point or another. While not everyone may dabble
in
digital, APRS, SSTV, or whatever, everyone will have to establish a radio
set up at some point or another. The best would be a sucessful mobile
installation, but doing testing outside just wouldn't be feasible.

On your latter comment, be careful how you word things in this debate:
the
test is performance based right now. It baseed on one's ability to
understand CW, and that is performance.

Only if they know how to connect the antenna to the radio. ;-)