In article ,
(Gene Gardner) wrote:

This seems like a good place to insert a discussion about a
"shielded loop" being a myth for anything except for deeper
nulls in the directivity pattern: (these were posted about
18 months ago).
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------

Snip

It is a good example of why I do not read rec.radio.amateur.antenna.
Anything you read in it has about a 50% chance of being correct. It is
up to you to figure out which is right. If I want to read a thesis, I'll
crack a textbook where I stand a better chance of not being misled. With
technical articles, I also do not have to deal with terms like, myth,
oldwives tails, or requests for citations and the like.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote in message

It is a good example of why I do not read rec.radio.amateur.antenna.
Anything you read in it has about a 50% chance of being correct. It is
up to you to figure out which is right. If I want to read a thesis, I'll
crack a textbook where I stand a better chance of not being misled. With
technical articles, I also do not have to deal with terms like, myth,
oldwives tails, or requests for citations and the like.

And r.r.s differs from this how? They spread just as much crap here,
as they do there....Probably more...And much more OT's and radio
whacko's to boot...BTW, I happen to agree with the "thesis". I don't
believe in "low noise" antennas. Anyone who believes a shielded loop
is "quieter" than a non shielded loop needs a reality check. So in
that, I'm glad he posted the "thesis". Old wives tales need to be shot
down.....Over and over...Until dead. BTW, I don't have a cessna
citation, so they will be out of luck in that dept...I do fly a lear
31a on my simulator a lot though. MK

In article ,
(Mark Keith) wrote:

Telamon wrote in message

It is a good example of why I do not read rec.radio.amateur.antenna.
Anything you read in it has about a 50% chance of being correct. It is
up to you to figure out which is right. If I want to read a thesis, I'll
crack a textbook where I stand a better chance of not being misled. With
technical articles, I also do not have to deal with terms like, myth,
oldwives tails, or requests for citations and the like.

And r.r.s differs from this how? They spread just as much crap here,
as they do there....Probably more...And much more OT's and radio
whacko's to boot...BTW, I happen to agree with the "thesis". I don't
believe in "low noise" antennas. Anyone who believes a shielded loop
is "quieter" than a non shielded loop needs a reality check. So in
that, I'm glad he posted the "thesis". Old wives tales need to be shot
down.....Over and over...Until dead. BTW, I don't have a cessna
citation, so they will be out of luck in that dept...I do fly a lear
31a on my simulator a lot though. MK

Well, OK there is just as much crap here but the posts in RRS do not
usually turn into a "thesis" or degenerate into soap operatic techno
babble with the usual cast of characters.

Generally, the air of pretense does not exist in RRS, as people here do
not claim to be other than nonprofessional on the subject.

Oh yeah and you are wrong about the shielded loop.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California