Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

That is his choice, one that you are defeating for not other reason than you vanity (which this thread is likely stroking).

The beauty of the Usenet is obviously lost on you.

Yes, and I'm sure it's not the first time your arrogance has gotten in the way of communication.

...and they work rather well as antennas, just as any open line. Folded dipoles don't work so well if you twist them, though.

: >> Ok, fine. But you are over-complicating things IMHO. : >> Why do you need different fonts for different levels : >> of quotes..? : >

: > That is his choice, one that you are defeating for not : > other reason than you vanity (which this thread is : > likely stroking).

Exactly - it's *his* choice, so why should *I* have to modify my long-established system to accommodate him and a handful of people who can't cope..?

: >> The beauty of Usenet to : >> me is it is (theoretically at any rate) in *plain : >> ASCII text* so all this mucking about with fonts, : >> colours or whatever that people do on the web is, or : >> so I thought, mercifully absent. : >

: > The beauty of the Usenet is obviously lost on you.

No, it hasn't, that's my point.

: >> Seems I was wrong. But I'm not changing my quote : >> marks. Live with it or plonk me, it's all the same to : >> me. : >>

: > Yes, and I'm sure it's not the first time your : > arrogance has gotten in the way of communication.

Whatever you say. But I'm still not changing my quotes to suit a handful of people out of the thousands I've come across in the years I've been on Usenet.

Bye.

Ivor

: > *MY* system is configured properly. *YOU* have the : > problem. ...and more than one.

Eh..? *I* don't have a problem. Seems to me it's *you* that has the problem, if you can't cope with a simple : character in a plain text message.

Bye.

Ivor

: >> Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If : >> your software can't do what you want it to, get : >> software that can. : >

: > This is only true if your intention is to write for : > yourself. In that case, why bother the rest of us?

Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is written in plain text, by the way. If you can't cope with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII text, tough.

Bye.

Ivor

Correct.

The usual meaning is a flexible, rubber or PVC covered, two or three core cable, used to connect an appliance to its electrical source. This may be via a plug and socket in the case of something like a vacuum cleaner, or fixed as in the cable suspending a light fitting from the ceiling fixture.

Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of quoting as if you had used "> >"

I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear naturally in a "plain text" email as it is a standard punctuation mark, ">" is far less likely though I suppose ": :" is unlikely too.

: >> Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is : >> written in plain text, by the way. If you can't cope : >> with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII text, : >> tough. : >

: > I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear : > naturally in a "plain text" email as it is a standard : > punctuation mark, ">" is far less likely though I : > suppose ": :" is unlikely too.

But what is the objection..? I just don't get it. I've been on Usenet for over 10 years and nobody has *ever* complained about this before.

Ivor

: > Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the : > fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of : > quoting as if you had used "> >"

Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)

Ivor

There is a fundamental difference between a folded dipole and a loop antenna. It is exactly as I suggested above.

You apparently have no idea what a folded dipole *is*, in theory. Consider another similar construction, which does not change anything in the same way that a loop does: multiwire rhombics. The effects are the same as experienced with a folded dipole (the two conductors equate to one larger conductor).

The claim that separation between the two wires of a twisted pair (or even an untwisted parallel pair) transmission line has the effect of a loop antenna is false.

The idea that this is covered in "EE100" is equally ridiculous, and the dismissal (in a different message) of my suggestion to read the work of Kraus, where it is in fact discussed in detail, suggests that some people really should read Kraus.

This post typifies your attitude toward you reader. The question is, why do *you* bother writing if you have no interest in your reader?

Right. Why should you care about anyone other than yourself?

It *obviously* has.

Of course you're not going to adopt to group norms. You're far to important for that.

Yes, you do.

Again, it is not *I* who has a problem.

Keep up the baloney Floyd. You're good at it.

If it were baloney you should be able to demonstrate it fairly easily; instead you post insults and can't follow up to even the lowest level of technical discussion.

Do you understand the comparison between the effects of multiple wires used in rhombic design to the multiple wires used for folded dipole design? (And do you understand the one difference?)

And do you have any idea how silly it is to say that folded dipoles don't work if they are twisted???? Of course many, if not most, homemade folded dipoles used at HF frequencies do in fact end up being twisted...

Go to a library, read Kraus.

... snip misquoted stuff ...

Well, there have been detailed intelligent postings of reasons to comply, and postings of general malignancy, and I have avoided at least 1/2 of all that so far. I see no reason to retract my plonk so far. I wonder how many other plonkers there are out there.

| : > I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear | : > naturally in a "plain text" email as it is a standard | : > punctuation mark, ">" is far less likely though I | : > suppose ": :" is unlikely too. | | But what is the objection..? I just don't get it. I've been on Usenet for | over 10 years and nobody has *ever* complained about this before.

The fact that you are DOUBLE indenting makes it appear that you have quoted ONLY the quoting of the previous poster. It doesn't matter if the indenting is ": >" or ": :" or even "> >". It is misleading.

What was fixed? The same issue still exists. It is NOT an issue of what the character is. It is an issue of DOUBLE indenting.