eddie,
if you can't be bothered reading the articles I post when you ask me to I sure can't be bothered pointing out what parts are pertinent to the topic when i already have oposted quotes from the articles,
we have gone over this more than once, the arrl article has been posted on here for 6 years, Barkleys more recently,
your first attempt to tell us what it meant was hilarious,
if Barkley & the last link I posted yet again for you are too much for you, I can't help that,
try starting with Lou franklins books, they are tailor made for you eddie, then I suggest you try the arrl open sleeve article again,
I'm not building a vector to prove you wrong eddie, its your job to prove to us what you claim, You build it and show us how it won't work lol,
yes back when this started I did say that I thought i may be somehow manipulating takeoff angle with my adjustments,
show me something that refutes that idea eddie,
you are happy to keep reminding us that sirio call the vector a coaxial j-pole,
but not happy if we say the sleeve is coaxial, you prefer to make up your own rules of what is coaxial,
not happy when sirio claim the new vector is optimised for a lower takeoff angle than the old vector by doing the same thing I thought I may be doing 10 years ago,
its called ignoring the parts that don't fit your paradigm, its the way your clouded mind works eddie,
when twisting peoples words to suite your agenda fails you start pointing out my spelling errors ignoring the fact you are worse than I am lmao, and you accuse me of misdirection lmfao.
You have taken over from Doc in the way you conduct yourself in a debate with nonsensical answers and a refusal to read links or post links to respected sources to back up your ideas,
if you put half as much effort into learning as you do arguing twisting and making snide comments you could possibly understand the links I post.
