|
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
....Get a look at the ICOM R-9500 receiver Owners Manual, in PDF format
at: http://radioworld.ca and navigate your way to Icom 9500 site, and scroll to left for pdf brochure and/or manual. The manual runs to almost an incredible 200 Pages...WOW This receiver is amazing..it does everything except wash your car and win you the lottery (which you'll need if you hope to buy one). |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Feb 28, 3:38*pm, SW4ever wrote:
- ...Get a look at the ICOM R-9500 receiver Owners Manual, in PDF format at: * - http://radioworld.ca* - and navigate your way to Icom 9500 site, - and scroll to left for pdf brochure and/or manual. - The manual runs to almost an incredible 200 Pages... - WOW - This receiver is amazing..it does everything except - wash your car and - win you the lottery - (which you'll need if you hope to buy one). SW4ever, Maybe it should be called the I¢$M I¢-R95$$ ! Receiver http://www.grove-ent.com/r9500.html http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...rxvr/0095.html http://www.icomamerica.com/en/produc...0/default.aspx http://www.icomamerica.com/en/produc...fications.aspx eHAM - Reviews for Icom IC-R9500 Receiver http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/6577 Evidently 4 People must have Won-the-Lottery ! http://www.rigpix.com/icom/icr9500.htm ~ RHF |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Feb 28, 6:38 pm, SW4ever wrote:
...Get a look at the ICOM R-9500 receiver Owners Manual, in PDF format at: http://radioworld.ca and navigate your way to Icom 9500 site, and scroll to left for pdf brochure and/or manual. The manual runs to almost an incredible 200 Pages...WOW This receiver is amazing..it does everything except wash your car and win you the lottery (which you'll need if you hope to buy one). Probably be hard in a " blind shortwave test" to differentiate between this one an R8 & an Icom R75 |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:51:20 -0800 (PST), David
wrote: On Feb 28, 6:38 pm, SW4ever wrote: ...Get a look at the ICOM R-9500 receiver Owners Manual, in PDF format at: http://radioworld.ca and navigate your way to Icom 9500 site, and scroll to left for pdf brochure and/or manual. The manual runs to almost an incredible 200 Pages...WOW This receiver is amazing..it does everything except wash your car and win you the lottery (which you'll need if you hope to buy one). Probably be hard in a " blind shortwave test" to differentiate between this one an R8 & an Icom R75 Okay folks.........get ready for yet another round of the R75 vs R8 debate. As to the blind test I would be more than happy to participate, I'll bring an R75, 100 feet of wire and an ICE 182 along with some rope & insulators etc to put up the test antenna. I'm sure there are many R8 owners who might wish to participate.............anyone out there with the Icom 9500? Oh, and if the other participants cannot travel to a mutual location just ship me your radios & I'll do the test myself...........though it sure may take a long time to get conclusive evidence 8-} |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
David wrote:
Probably be hard in a " blind shortwave test" to differentiate between this one an R8 & an Icom R75 Do you feel the R75 is as good for utility listening as it's cracked up to be? Any experience with the digital sound module for that set? mike |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:26:47 GMT, m II wrote:
David wrote: Probably be hard in a " blind shortwave test" to differentiate between this one an R8 & an Icom R75 Do you feel the R75 is as good for utility listening as it's cracked up to be? Any experience with the digital sound module for that set? mike For utilities it's great. Mine was bought used with Kiwa mods and additional narrow filters for SSB, though in reality the filters are narrower than I've neede. Have considered pulling them and getting decent wide filters for AM, though in reality the amount of time I spend listening I'm not ready to spend the bucks. In many cases I'll do the ECSS thing and get sound quality a bit better than in AM or AM-Synch. I've never done an A-B test with an R8 so I can't comment on how they two would stack up, though knowing Drake I do believe anyone who says they find the Drake audio notably better. BY digital sound module do you mean the voice synthesisor (sp?) or the DSP? The DSP is okay - more effective the NIR-10 I used to use on my ham xceivers but it didn't knock my socks off. Overall a good radio in it's price class. |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
Radioguy wrote:
Yes, I agree. Side by side there would probably be a few situations where each of those receivers would excel by a small margin on HF. The 9500 might be a bargain if measured by the price-per-button. The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not, or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it. Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5 wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there, so the difference in price does not buy you much. Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long. Multiply that by 10. At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of an expensive VoIP box. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Feb 29, 8:09*am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not, or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it. Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5 wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there, so the difference in price does not buy you much. Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long. Multiply that by 10. At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of an expensive VoIP box. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Geoff makes a good point - whilst an R75 will get 99% of the catches, after 40 years DXing I am now after that rare 1% - those tough MW catches over 14,000 miles away from my QTH. That's when one of these super priced full feature radio's come into their own and make the investment worthwhile. That's why I am upgrading to an Icom IC-7700 - something I am waiting for with foetid breath, expected to arrive here in April. BTW it's manual is 217 pages!!! John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s RX Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods Drake SW8 & ERGO software Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100 BW XCR 30, Sangean 803A. Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270 Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof mini-whip http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Feb 28, 6:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:51:20 -0800 (PST), David wrote: On Feb 28, 6:38 pm, SW4ever wrote: ...Get a look at the ICOM R-9500 receiver Owners Manual, in PDF format at: *http://radioworld.caand navigate your way to Icom 9500 site, and scroll to left for pdf brochure and/or manual. The manual runs to almost an incredible 200 Pages...WOW This receiver is amazing..it does everything except wash your car and win you the lottery (which you'll need if you hope to buy one). Probably be hard in a " blind shortwave test" to differentiate between this one an R8 & an Icom R75 Okay folks.........get ready for yet another round of the R75 vs R8 debate. - As to the blind test I would be more than happy to participate, - I'll bring an R75, 100 feet of wire and an ICE 182 along with - some rope & insulators etc to put up the test antenna. * GH - For a 'true' Side-by-Side using one Antenna you will need some sort of an Antenna Splitter/Combiner : The RF Systems SP-2 2-Way Antenna Splitter might help so that you can use the same Antenna, MT and Feed-in-Line and do an actual side-by-side for the two radios. -or- RF Systems SP-1 Splitter/Combiner; LF Engineering SPL-2/50L VLF-HF Two-Way Splitter/Combiner The only other 'cheap-and-dirty' way is to simply use 100 Feet of 300 Ohm Twin Lead -or- 450 Ohm Ladder-Line. +plus+ Use a a common 8-Foot Ground Rod for 'both' Receivers. Use the Receiver's HI-Z Terminals for the Antenna Inputs. * One of the Parallel Wires to One Receiver and the * 'other' Parallel Wire to the 'other' Receiver. =YES= I know it ain't perfect but it does work better than a single Wire Antenna Element etc; and then Switching back-and-forth between the two receivers. ~ RHF |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:07:38 GMT, m II wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: Perhaps 'bated breath' would be more to Sir's liking? "Foetid" is a lot funnier ;-) Very true. I've wondered about people who write 'Baited' instead of 'Bated'. I feel like asking them if they've been eating worms. Ah..English....she's a cruel mistress... mike Bait.............sushi...........what's the difference? |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:44:06 -0800 (PST), Radioguy
wrote: On Feb 29, 1:09*am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: Radioguy wrote: Yes, I agree. *Side by side there would probably be a few situations where each of those receivers would excel by a small margin on HF. The 9500 might be a bargain if measured by the price-per-button. The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not, or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it. Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5 wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there, so the difference in price does not buy you much. Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long. Multiply that by 10. At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of an expensive VoIP box. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not. And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true. I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed to deliver. The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not. But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands is where the receivers should be compared. I don't know that we'll ever answer this question here on the ng. Yes, it boils down to basic signal capture capability - however, if one radio makes that easier via better DSP, filters, easy to use controls vs embedded menus I bet it will more often be used to its full potential. On a separate note; this is one of the better threads - good focus on on-topic material! |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
Did y'all see Regis Philbin down there on that red carpet? He saw a buck
he haden't got his hands on yet! cuhulin |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Feb 29, 8:48*am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"m II" wrote in message news:e5Wxj.49169$w57.23959@edtnps90... bpnjensen wrote: Perhaps 'bated breath' would be more to Sir's liking? "Foetid" is a lot funnier ;-) Very true. - - I've wondered about people who write 'Baited' - - instead of 'Bated'. I feel like asking them if - - they've been eating worms. That would be "Chicken Livers" in Catfish County - - - and they are good eating too ;-} -ps- Ain't Got No "Chicken Livers" . . . just say 'Cheese' :o() - - p s - - then again so do tell that Raw {un-cooked} Shrimp is loved by Catfish almost as much as by Us'uns. - You may have noted that many of these spellings - that are based on arcane usages or situations have - now been accepted in both the "modern" (wrong) - and traditional (right) forms because the mis-use - exceeds the correct use. Write Down Vulgar Ain't It ! ~ RHF |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Feb 29, 3:17*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:07:38 GMT, m II wrote: bpnjensen wrote: Perhaps 'bated breath' would be more to Sir's liking? "Foetid" is a lot funnier ;-) Very true. I've wondered about people who write 'Baited' instead of 'Bated'. I feel like asking them if they've been eating worms. Ah..English....she's a cruel mistress... mike - Bait.............sushi...........what's the difference? That would be Bait... $u$hi... there in lies the differen¢e ! |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Feb 29, 8:44*am, Radioguy wrote:
On Feb 29, 1:09*am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: Radioguy wrote: Yes, I agree. *Side by side there would probably be a few situations where each of those receivers would excel by a small margin on HF. The 9500 might be a bargain if measured by the price-per-button. The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not, or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it. Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5 wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there, so the difference in price does not buy you much. Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long. Multiply that by 10. At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of an expensive VoIP box. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not. And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true. I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed to deliver. The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not. - But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands - is where the receivers should be compared. Yeah I Buy a Radio to be able to Hear what I want to Listen to; and too much 'stuff' starts to be 'stuff' that gets in the way of the actual Radio Listening. Well if you Buy 16+ Acres of Land to put up Four (4) Rhombic Antennas each on it's own 4 Acres and pointing at the Four Cardinal Headings N-E-S-W then you might be in a position to discern the difference on a daily basis. Plus the Land can usually be sold at a profit sometime in the future. remember - don't let all the knobs and buttons stop you from simply enjoying listening to you radios ~ RHF |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Feb 29, 3:28*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:44:06 -0800 (PST), Radioguy wrote: On Feb 29, 1:09*am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: Radioguy wrote: Yes, I agree. *Side by side there would probably be a few situations where each of those receivers would excel by a small margin on HF. The 9500 might be a bargain if measured by the price-per-button. The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not, or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it. Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5 wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there, so the difference in price does not buy you much. Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long. Multiply that by 10. At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of an expensive VoIP box. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not. And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true. I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed to deliver. The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not. But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands is where the receivers should be compared. - I don't know that we'll ever answer this question here - on the ng. - Yes, it boils down to basic signal capture capability - however, if one radio makes that easier via better DSP, - filters, easy to use controls vs embedded menus - I bet it will more often be used to its full potential. Simplicity + Practicality + Performance = ____________ http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...vr/0082lrg.gif ! ! ! P R I C E L E S S ! ! ! - On a separate note; this is one of the better threads - good focus on on-topic material! Ditto That ! |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
On Feb 29, 7:22*pm, RHF wrote:
On Feb 29, 8:44*am, Radioguy wrote: On Feb 29, 1:09*am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: Radioguy wrote: Yes, I agree. *Side by side there would probably be a few situations where each of those receivers would excel by a small margin on HF. The 9500 might be a bargain if measured by the price-per-button. The 9500 is a bargain if you have the money and want that extra margin in the situations it excels at. If it makes the difference between having every possible DXCC country in your log and not, or getting that one extra contact for a contest, it's worth it. Since this is an SWL group, let's face it, that extra margin is probably of no concern to an SWL. In the real world a $200 portable with a $5 wire probably will "bag" you 95% of what is out there when it is there, so the difference in price does not buy you much. Did you know there is a ham out there with a 20m (14mHz) 10 element beam antenna? I'm sure he could use one. :-) If you don't know the math, my 11 element 2m beam antenna was 6 feet wide, by 12 feet long. Multiply that by 10. At least they made the thing look and feel like a radio, instead of an expensive VoIP box. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice:**************1-2...******* Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not. And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true. I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed to deliver. The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not. - But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands - is where the receivers should be compared. Yeah I Buy a Radio to be able to Hear what I want to Listen to; and too much 'stuff' starts to be 'stuff' that gets in the way of the actual Radio Listening. Well if you Buy 16+ Acres of Land to put up Four (4) Rhombic Antennas each on it's own 4 Acres and pointing at the Four Cardinal Headings N-E-S-W then you might be in a position to discern the difference on a daily basis. *Plus the Land can usually be sold at a profit sometime in the future. remember - don't let all the knobs and buttons stop you from simply enjoying listening to you radios ~ RHF *.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, good advice. |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
In article
, David wrote: On Feb 28, 6:38 pm, SW4ever wrote: ...Get a look at the ICOM R-9500 receiver Owners Manual, in PDF format at: http://radioworld.ca and navigate your way to Icom 9500 site, and scroll to left for pdf brochure and/or manual. The manual runs to almost an incredible 200 Pages...WOW This receiver is amazing..it does everything except wash your car and win you the lottery (which you'll need if you hope to buy one). Probably be hard in a " blind shortwave test" to differentiate between this one an R8 & an Icom R75 I think it would be easy. These two sets have very different audio characteristics. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
In article
, RHF wrote: On Feb 28, 6:25*pm, wrote: On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:51:20 -0800 (PST), David wrote: On Feb 28, 6:38 pm, SW4ever wrote: ...Get a look at the ICOM R-9500 receiver Owners Manual, in PDF format at: *http://radioworld.caand navigate your way to Icom 9500 site, and scroll to left for pdf brochure and/or manual. The manual runs to almost an incredible 200 Pages...WOW This receiver is amazing..it does everything except wash your car and win you the lottery (which you'll need if you hope to buy one). Probably be hard in a " blind shortwave test" to differentiate between this one an R8 & an Icom R75 Okay folks.........get ready for yet another round of the R75 vs R8 debate. - As to the blind test I would be more than happy to participate, - I'll bring an R75, 100 feet of wire and an ICE 182 along with - some rope & insulators etc to put up the test antenna. * GH - For a 'true' Side-by-Side using one Antenna you will need some sort of an Antenna Splitter/Combiner : SNIP Unlike yourself most people have this sort of thing figured out already and it would comprise of more than passive splitters but thanks for trying. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
dave wrote: wrote: On Feb 29, 6:44 pm, Radioguy wrote: It would be interesting to determine if the 9500 could actually deliver usable signals from stations where the other two could not. And it would be equally interesting to see if the reverse were true. I would like to read about or somehow quantify the as yet undefined listening margin that a mega-buck reveiver like the 9500 is supposed to deliver. The 9500 has a graphic spectrum display, frequency coverage darkness to daylight and numerous controls that the other receivers do not. But basic signal grabbing performance on the HF bands is where the receivers should be compared.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I did a comparison between a Drake R8B and a high ticket Icom IC-756PROIII see: http://www.dxing.info/equipment/icom_ic756_plimmer.dx where I clearly note the superiority of the more expensive radio. Of course the law of diminishing returns applies, so when I get my new Icom IC-7700 I do not expect the performance to be earth shatteringly better than my 756Pro3, but the differences will be there. If it gets me only one more really exotic catch that the 756Pro3 could not resolve, then it will have been worth the extra money I am laying out. As a matter of interest I go on DXpeditions with a mate, Vince Stevens, who has my old Drake R8A. On several occasions I have been able to demonstrate to him that I am resolving readable signals on the 756Pro3 which he has not been able to resolve on his R8A. But I rush to say that the R8A will ably resolve 99% of all stations, so it is just those rare exotic signals that I am chasing with the more pricey full featured radio's. Also, these top end full featured radio's make DXing a lot easier, a bit like driving a top end Cadilac compared to driving a bottom end budget model. The R9500 will definitely do a better job of receiving tough signals than a Drake R8. Have fun and good DX John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s RX Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods Drake SW8 & ERGO software Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100 BW XCR 30, Sangean 803A. Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270 Kiwa MW Loop, PAORDT Roelof mini-whip http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx Don't tell Ace. Ace is doing ok! At this point in time what I have here has done a superb job. If I were in need of a bit of RF help, I'd merely go out somewhere and lay out a thousand feet of wire. Problem solved for that 'tough' SWBC target, at a fraction of the cost. dxAce Michigan USA Drake R7, R8, R8A and R8B 70' and 200' wires. Using the NASWA Country List, I have 239 countries heard, and 222 QSL'd. |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
dxAce, might I suggest you talk to your neighbors? They might let you
string some wire across their back yards too. cuhulin |
Astounding. that's the only word for it...
In article
, RHF wrote: On Mar 1, 1:25*pm, Telamon wrote: In article , *RHF wrote: On Mar 1, 9:46*am, wrote: - - dxAce, - might I suggest you talk to your neighbors? - They might let you string some wire across - their back yards too. - cuhulin - - - Cuhulin, - - - - Good Idea - I did that when I was a Kid in Oakland, CA - - and had a 148 Foot Dipole Antenna at the Backyard - - Fence extending out along the Neighbors fences too. - - Had to Mow their Lawns once a Week for Eight Weeks - - to get them to agree to it. *Over the Years those old - - Neighbors moved or died and the Masts for the Antenna - - came down along with the Antenna. *I was actually an - - Inverted "V" {Dipole} Antenna with a Center-Point of - - 38 Feet and the two Ends were 20 Feet. *Used a Direct - - Connection to 450 Ohm Ladder-Line {No Matching - - Transformer / Balun} - - - - i could point at it and say : hey - i built that myself ! - - along with a little help from my daddy ;-) ~ RHF - - *. - - See you can generate a post like a normal person - but this is like 0.1% of your posts. For some reason - 99.9% of your posts are made by some asshole that - claims to be you. Here you related a relevant on topic - story about your experiences in the hobby instead of - the usual google, copy, and paste post and you did - not change the subject line either. I noticed that you - did not need any of the weird punctuation either. - - So this pretty much proves that you are not retarded - and 99.9% of your posts to the news group is deliberate - Trolling behavior by an SOB. - - -- - Telamon - Ventura, California - PONG : Telamon - Poluting another On-Topic Thread with Your Personal Attacks on Me {RHF} -ps- That's Reply # 2 for 3/1/08 Telamon - In the Name of Google... I Denouce The Demon Within You ! Get Thee Out Old "Ping-Pong" - Be Gone - Amen ~ RHF . I suggest you drop the retard act and either start posting as a normal contributer to the news group or get lost. Stop changing the subject line moron. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com