[Lowfer] Embattled E-Probe

[Peter Barick]

>>> ashlockw@hotmail.com 10/06/03 10:11PM >>>
You know Peter, you ought to get outside and run some of these
experiments, 
yourself, instead of sitting around and making fun of those that have!
>>>

Sir Bill, thanks for the comedic credit, though I'll pass on that
appellation for now. Interesting, you minding my time/endeavors but
let's stay on topic. You didn't answer the essential part of last post
and it pertains to your assertions, perhaps you forgot. So here goes
again:

" Why is cap-loading bad (when under trees, objects (first floor of a
1,000 foot hotel),
 but cap "sapping" is OK?"  Here, the hard part may be "sapping" and
take it as a
 pseudonym for your words below of "spacing became 0 [zero]."

Bill, there seems to be a contradiction here. It's as if we can have
cake and eat it too. Can that be clarified for the list, esp. newbies?


Bill says: " If you had ever walked around with a potable LF receiver
in one hand
 and an E-probe in the other you wouldn't be making these statements.
"

Me: Correct, w.r.t LF. There is ample info to attest to the "electronic
umbrella" thesis. Further, I shall not be mounting a probe in my Catalpa
or one lonely pine when I have a tall tower for that purpose. Guess it's
a matter of taste and best use of my time/resources. Plus, I believe a
probe works best consistently, *all the time* in a clear environment,
ie, in a traditional milieu.

Bill says: "Those that have touched an E-probe to any tree know exactly
what I mean."

Me: OK, I haven't. But the issue isn't only raising sig levels
absolutely. If noise rises proportionally this is no useful gain. So,
what have you found about noise, if there was a test for that? Are you
saying there was a net gain over noise, hence a real benefit?

Peter