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 -